[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Abbeten"]I don't agree with you that my rights have been infringed upon by the creation of a safety net. And it's utterly bizarre that you can't seem to understand that. AbbetenI was talking about the difference between general and specific welfare. I wasn't talking about your supposed understanding of the Constitution. I understand how you can say entitlements are the same as the general population. I can see how you think your rights are not violated. You don't know the difference. But don't feel bad. You are not alone. That should get your spirit up because you value the majority thinking. Okay. You can continue thinking you're a special snowflake for having a different (and extremely limited) interpretation of the phrase 'general welfare.' I'll just let you do that. Opposed to what? The Constitution being a guideline for the government? Your think that the government should just go on as it has been because that's how it's always been? If you think that, how can you tell me what the Constitution means? You let me? Like you allow me to think this way because you have some sort of power over me? Right. You live in a democracy. How about this? You allow me to do so because you would otherwise be violating the preamble.
LOXO7's forum posts
I don't agree with you that my rights have been infringed upon by the creation of a safety net. And it's utterly bizarre that you can't seem to understand that. AbbetenI was talking about the difference between general and specific welfare. I wasn't talking about your supposed understanding of the Constitution. I understand how you can say entitlements are the same as the general population. I can see how you think your rights are not violated. You don't know the difference. But don't feel bad. You are not alone. That should get your spirit up because you value the majority thinking.
No one is saying the government has rights. The government DOES have powers though, and they are enumerated in the constitution and exercised in the enactment and enforcement of laws. Civics 101.AbbetenGovernment can have powers. Where that power comes from depends on the government.
A monarchy is where one person has all of the power. You have two choices in a monarchy, follow the kings law or die.
Spread the power out a little and then you have an oligarchy or aristocracy. All of the laws made are going to benefit the aristocracy. This is socialism and communism.
Now spread the power to everyone and this is a democracy. Rule by the majority. You have no rights in a democracy. You have privileges granted to you by the majority.
A Republican form of government is the United States government. This is based on individual rights and property. In a republic we can vote on everything besides your property. The rights and property of the minority is protected.
The government does not have power to take away my right or property because the power originates from the individual. The individual grants the government it's power not to mess up that power. The government is messing up that power. And you say that's allowed because you learned that the government has power in your civics class.
Tradition within the Court's constitutional framework is corroding the constitution itself. Got it.AbbetenThis is talking like the judiciary is king. The people not knowing the purpose of the government has corrupted government. The purpose of the court is to judge if your rights have been violated. The purpose of congress is not to create laws violating the people's rights. The purpose of the president is to protect the Constitution. How do we corrupt this? Ignore it. We do that well. But you are taking it one step further. You are actually defending the government by calling it a tradition. Sick. Defend your rights. The government does not.
The government doesn't require you to have a driver's license. Did you just discover libertarianism yesterday? Because you don't seem to understand any sort of legal nuance. Or even the fact that 'we the people' shape the government through elections and that government is comprised of American citizens. It's like you don't understand the basic underlying philosophy of a legislature or a representative government.Abbeten
Because they shouldn't require you to do anything. It is not it's purpose. It can't order you to do anything. I know about the people in government. They are doing actions against freedom without punishment. Because the people are letting them do this. We shape the government by letting the government do what it wants. We do this by doing nothing! We let the government tell us what to do. We are stupid for not realizing this.
We have rights. Not the government. The government is made up of people and those people have rights. Duh. But not the government. The government is not a person. Corporations are not a person. They don't have rights. We the people allow this to happen.
So your argument is that everyone should recieve food stamps? Everyone should automatically have a driver's license?worlock77It's not a disagreement. It is a command to make a more perfect union. We promote the general welfare. This is an agreement. Welfare for everyone. A drivers license from the government is unnecessary. Because the government doesn't provide rights. It is supposed to protect them.
I'm the one speaking in vague terms? I'm not the one who misinterprets the Constitution. I'm not the one who decides to agree with whatever the government says. I'm trying to know my rights so when drones start to fly over our cities I can be there to stand up for our rights and say this is wrong. And you can be there to obey. Because you are talking like you are oblivious.[QUOTE="LOXO7"]
[QUOTE="Abbeten"] You're speaking in really vague terms. Congress is already 'afraid' of the people in the sense that they try to do things that are popular in their districts so they get reelected. And Congress' purpose is to represent the will of its constituents in legislation. They do that, more or less. And if they overstep the bounds of their powers in the constitution, the supreme court is there to arbitrate that. The problem here is that the Constitution does not always prescribe cut and dry solutions for every scenario. The Court often finds valid arguments both for and against specific bills, and in those cases, it rules in favor of upholding the legislation. So basically what it comes down to is, your idea of constitutionality is not definitive, and it's probably a little arrogant to accuse hundreds of people of treason for disagreeing with you!Abbeten
Court decisions do not promote freedom. How did the people gain more freedom after the decision of Roe v. Wade? The people already had the freedom. They don't need to have the supreme court tell them so. If they were educated. Maybe this would be different. But who controls the majority of education? The government. Everything good public schools have taught me that I use today I would have learned it from my parents. Teachings such as reading, writing, mathematics, and the differences between money, coins, and dollars.
Anyways the most important thing the government wants from you is to get you to agree with their unconstitutional privileges via licenses. Government's licenses is not freedom. Why do we let the government to tell us what we can do when we have the Constitution reminding us what the government can't do?
And yet you continue in your belief that the Constitution is black and white and that your interpretation is the only valid one, even despite centuries of legal tradition that clearly shows you are wrong. The rest of your post suggests you don't actually understand the purpose of the Court.Also I don't think you're reading my posts, because our welfare programs are not by nature 'promoting limited welfare.'
The legal traditions slowly corrupting the Constitutions purpose. America went from the king's subjects, to free men, to the government's subjects. Freedom is not free. It's hard work. Work that people don't want to do and just accept the new government, like you do. Calling it tradition shows how off base you really are. You have to stand up for your rights or you will lose them. First it is important to know what they are. Our welfare programs are agreed by the people. It's part of creating a more perfect union.[QUOTE="LOXO7"]
I'm the one speaking in vague terms? I'm not the one who misinterprets the Constitution. I'm not the one who decides to agree with whatever the government says. I'm trying to know my rights so when drones start to fly over our cities I can be there to stand up for our rights and say this is wrong. And you can be there to obey. Because you are talking like you are oblivious.
Court decisions do not promote freedom. How did the people gain more freedom after the decision of Roe v. Wade? The people already had the freedom. They don't need to have the supreme court tell them so. If they were educated. Maybe this would be different. But who controls the majority of education? The government. Everything good public schools have taught me that I use today I would have learned it from my parents. Teachings such as reading, writing, mathematics, and the differences between money, coins, and dollars.
Anyways the most important thing the government wants from you is to get you to agree with their unconstitutional privileges via licenses. Government's licenses is not freedom. Why do we let the government to tell us what we can do when we have the Constitution reminding us what the government can't do?
Bane_09
You have some really disjointed ideas:?
Are you saying you don't need public education because your parents could teach you instead?
The government giving out licences is unconstitional? Where are you getting all these ideas from?
That's what I said. I have loving parents. They teach me stuff. They didn't need to rely on the government to teach their son. It was convenient. But I am less educated now then I ever would have been if they paid more for my education. I didn't need public education. But I can only speak for myself.The government cannot require you to do something. The people created government. It gave the powers to the government as privileges. The government does not provide privileges to you. You have rights. The government requiring you to have a drivers license is unconstitutional. If we did live in a free land that anyone could do anything without stepping on others liberties and property and then the government stepped in and said, "Wait a minute there. You can't drive that machine without having a license first." This is a violation of my right to liberty. The government stops me from being free. The purpose of our government is to protect our rights. What good is it when the government doesn't respect our rights?
[QUOTE="LOXO7"]I have not said the welfare programs we have today are unconstitutional. What I am trying to say is that congress limiting who can receive welfare is an unconstitutional action. The Constitution specifically states we the people promote the general welfare. And now in today's world the majority of people would be reneging on this statement. If they think congress has a valid argument to make food stamps only for a certain type of person and not for the general public then cross out the word general and make it specific or entitled welfare.[QUOTE="white_wolf922"]
The problem is the majority of people don't feel the way you do. You're are the only person I've heard call wellfare programs unconstitutional. Even conservatives merely say they are wasteful or unnecessary. Beyond that you haven't given a shred of evidence to support your view aside from an extremely simplistic reading of the Constitution.
stiggy321
The Constitution is not hard to figure out. People have unalienable rights granted to them by existence. Luckily in America the founders agreed with this. They are life, liberty, and owning property. We the People means we the American citizens, not we the government officials. The people grant privileges to the government that it has to follow. Every time you see the word shall in the constitution that is the people giving this responsibility to the government. If they dishonor their responsibility it is treason. The tenth amendment prohibits the federal government to tweak or create new laws not specified in the previous amendments when it was created. But now as you can see other amendments go beyond the tenth. If you are going to have more amendments beyond the tenth, remove the tenth first. Otherwise it is treason. They did not follow the Constitution.
The Consitution states the people give privilaged powers to the government. It's a document from the people to the government. It's directions. Politicians have turn this idea upside down. Now the government unconstitutionally gives the people privileges, like licences. What?! How can that be when you have an unalienable right called liberty? The government doesn't grant us privileges. That's unconstitutional.
The government is not the people. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are not the people. If they were what would be the point of becoming independent from the king? The king makes the laws, the government makes the laws. Wrong. The people make the law. We the people does not mean we the government. General welfare does not mean only what the government decides on what is general.
That's the ninth amendment. It's about you have more rights that are not written in the Constitution. The tenth is about keeping the federal government small. That it doesn't have the ability to assume powers because they are not written in the Constitution.
Is English your first language? Why place that useless not word in that question? Be direct, like the Constitution. Be direct, like the founding fathers had to be when creating a different government from the monarcy government. They had to be direct, because that was the point of breaking free from it. You guys are the ones being vague. Vague. Let congress decide what they ment. No. The people tell the government what to do. Not the other way around.
Log in to comment