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.
Okay so I can't say I know a lot about this idea. But as of now this is my take on it. Or at least my idea on what it seams Bernie Sanders is putting forward. Socialism would be a complete and total form of Government or you could say Social Contract. But Democratic Socialism would be where there are certain things about a Government. That you are willing to put forward the idea. That for the greater good of the many. There are certain things that are important enough to set aside some liberties and freedoms to have more control of them. For instance Education, Healthcare, Retirement, Social Mobility.......
I think it is safe to say at this point the USA is at gridlock. We have a right that is not able to budge from their beliefs on a limited form of Federal Government. And we have a left that is also unwilling to move to the middle of a top down Big all powerful Government. And the public according to most polls I can think of is split 50/50 from the right and left also. The way our system is set up it takes a major majority to get most thing done. So not much will change unless one side or the other gets major majorities in every branch of Government. Or all we can get are more half programs. I can't say I care for half programs because they will never be able to put any issue to rest. For instance I can't say Progressive Programs won't work. We have never had one. We always end up with a some what Progressive Program that would pass.
I myself don't think I have that big of an issue with some of these programs at the State level. I feel that at the state level the people will have enough control of the Political Scene to have a chance of it not getting out of control. It would also be limited in the power it has as far as finances go. As far as I know States can't just print money so if a Social type Program was insolvent the State could not keep it going. And worse case if the State I lived in went of the deep end I could always move to a different state and stay an American. Another advantage is we would not get stuck with a one size fits all program. Different states could do different things and we could work together to get to a program that works quicker with the states trying out things and showing if they do or don't work. And lets face it what works in some states wont work in others. Take gun control Alaska is one the the states with the highest amount of gun ownership. But the murder rate from guns is one of the lowest. Gun control even in the form of limiting the ownership because of mental issues and background checks would be horrible for Alaska. (Yah sorry family of 4 your dad takes Prozac for depression you can't have a gun. Just go out there and pet the bear I am sure it will just give you a big loving hug)........
So fine with all this considered can we just reAmend the 14th and give the States back the power to do things that don't have to pass the muster test that the Federal Government has to pass? There is a reason why the Federal Government can't solve to even get close to fixing Social Issues. It was never meant to! That along with Religion and Laws was all left to the States. The Bill of Rights was meant to apply to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT not the States. If you take away the modern interpretation of the 14th amendment then States can pass gun laws, laws based on religion, and everything else that would be considered Unconstitutional. After all that is why every (I think I know mine does) State has it's own Constitution.
We have a group of States. And there were problems we were trying to fix. For instance trade from State to State, Trade between States and other Governments, a central Military force to protect our borders and protect from invasion from other Countries. At this point in time each State was its own and on many things acted in it's own self interest. No State has to use it's own Militia to help another State fight enemies. No State had to honor any agreement that another State had with another Country or State.
So I fix this problem a group of people meet and formed the idea of a Central Government over all the States. To regulate and settle disputes between the States, with the power to call to arms all the States Militias if need be, and to regulate and hold trade agreement and treaties with other Countries.
The States had to agree to the form of Central Government for it to have any power over the States. This was the ratifying stage. Enough of the States in order to agree to the Ratifying of the Constitution. Came up with the Bill of Rights. They said unless the Constitution had these protections in place they would not Ratify it and it would never pass. So the drafters of the Constitution agreed that they would Amend the Constitution according to the protections in the Bill of Rights. And the States agreed under that promise that they would Ratify it and agree to the formation of a Central "Federal" Government.
So that is how we got the Bill of Rights and the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. They were put in place to limit the power and control of the FEDERAL Government over the States. This was an agreement between the Federal Government and the States not the States and the People. The Constitution is a document explaining the power and limits of our Federal Government. It has nothing to do with the States. Wrapping the State Governments into the same space as the Federal Government came latter.
Take a bit of time and look back to History after the Constitution and before the end of the Civil War or you could say prior to the 14th Amendment. You will find example after example of States doing things at the State Government level that go against the Bill of Rights. For instance many States had it in their own Constitutions that people had to be of a certain Religion to hold public Office in that State.
For some reason I can not understand most people consider the State Government and the Federal Government part of the same system. When they are not they were completely separate. And if it was not for what I think is a perverted view of what the 14th Amendment was meant to be. They would still be separate.
To help prove my point look up some of the Supreme Courts ruling pre 14th Amendment. The best example I can think of would be Barron v. Baltimore (1833). Actually on second thought I will write it out. If I have learned anything over time it is that people will not do their own research these days........
Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments. The case began with a lawsuit filed by John Barron against the city of Baltimore, claiming that the city had deprived him of his property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that the government may not take private property without just compensation. He alleged that the city ruined his busy wharf in Baltimore Harbor by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project that made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most vessels. The state court found that the city had unconstitutionally deprived Barron of private property and awarded him $4,500 in damages, to be paid by the city in compensation. An appellate court then reversed this award. Barron appealed to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1833.
The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Barron had no claim against the state under the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Court asserted that the Constitution was created "by the people of the United States" to apply only to the government that the Constitution had created -- the federal government -- and "not for the government of the individual states." The separate states had drafted constitutions only to apply to themselves, limiting the actions of only state governments. Thus, "the Fifth Amendment must be understood as restricting the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states." The Court argued that the validity of this conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution nowhere states that the Bill of Rights also limits the actions of state governments, Thus, the state of Maryland, through the actions of the city of Baltimore, did not infringe on the Constitution. With no federal claim, the Supreme Court thus lacked jurisdiction (or power) to hear Barron's case and dismissed it.
bmw335xi wrote: These programs would never work at the state level, it would have to be nationwide or nothing.
Care to explain your reasoning here? I see no reason why these programs would have any less of a chance working at the state level. This idea of its all or nothing that we see these days is mainly spin and talking points in my opinion. For instance the idea that if you are for something you must be against something. There are plenty of points in the middle someone could stand.
As an example I will use myself and my ideas on Abortion. I am for it and I am also against it. You see I feel that part of the price to be paid for liberty and freedom is the idea that people will use their own liberties and freedoms to sometimes do things you don't agree with. In the case of Abortion I agree mostly with the Supreme Court see the cases Roe v. Wade 1973 and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 1992. In short the Supreme Court decided that there were two liberties to be protected here. The liberties of the mother and the liberties of the unborn life inside of her. That these two liberties should be given priority on a sliding scale. During the beginning of pregnancy the liberties of the mother were of more importance than the liberties of the unborn child. And as the pregnancy continued to it conclusion the priority shifted from the mother to the priority of protecting the unborn child. They considered this shift to happen at Viability.
So despite what everyone talks about these days about woman's rights, the right to choose, war on woman. No State can hinder in any meaningful way a Woman's right to get an Abortion pre viability. And no State can keep a woman from getting an abortion post viability when it comes to the preservation and protection of maternal health.
So all this crap is just talking points like in cases of rape. Well that is already in place any woman from coast to coast can get an abortion in cases of rape or any other reason pre viability. Now you could say that she couldn't get one post viability if there is no reason to believe it would cause personal harm to the mother. But seriously in what world would it take a woman 20-24 weeks to decide to get an abortion because she was raped. She would know well before 20-24 weeks if she did or did not want to carry the baby of her rapist to term. And lets just say we live in the world where it does take some females a full 20-24 weeks to decide to abort her rapist baby. What number of those girls be? 0.0002%? At the rate of 1.2 million abortions per year and of those abortions only 3% being done post viability (360,000). .0002% of 360,000 would be .72 people it would affect. So your telling me we are having whole political debates and movements to protect the right of not even 1 whole person per year to have an abortion post viability because of rape?
But anyway off the rant and back to my point. I personally am against Abortion. Yes it does hurt and pisses me off that there are large groups of girls out there using it an a form of birth control. But I don't live in a world where what I think is the only thing that matters. I have no wish to stand here as a limited government constitutional conservative and say that in the cases where I believe differently I agree that I want a Big Government to step in and tell you how to live. Like I said earlier " I feel that part of the price to be paid for liberty and freedom is the idea that people will use their own liberties and freedoms to sometimes do things you don't agree with".
If you recall, during Obamas first term he had the majority in both houses. Thats right... All Dem majority. Why didn't more get done?
Because of Boosh and Cheney and Koch Brothers!
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.
