All you liberal socialist motherfluffers can just kiss my hairy dago ass.

Argue with that!

Nair

whats a dago ass? I get the hairy part, however i prefer not to Google anything with ass given the nature of people these days..

And my forefathers didnt fight the british to let wackjobs try to turn our religious freedom nation into a Christian version of Iran.... putz...

Just a point of note, Cerb ONLY fought for the freedom of white men who own land. He also fought for 2/3 of the freedom of black people and 0/3 of the freedom of women. So, if you are poor, non-white, or have a vagina - your freedom is not Cerbs concern and he would prefer you not vote at all.

Cerb sounds like one of the white supremacist nutjobs who will one day blew their fuse and we will see him on some news report.

Discuss

But isn't that the freedom that you're fighting for? Everybody has the right to vote. The majority wins. That's just the way it is. Unless you're suggesting that those "voting your freedom away" should be forced to vote in a way that you agree with? What kind of freedom is that?

mrcuban: dago = derogatory name for italian americans.

Cerb is in the mafia?


Oh I forgot to thank Obama for all the wonderful stuff he does


Thanks Obama for my freedom :)

eric: italian is insult enough.

hey ooh!

While you're unfortunately correct that currently that's "just the way it is", majority rule (the tyranny of the majority) is not what the founders of this country envisioned. The way it was SUPPOSED to work, was that there would be limits to what the government could do to people, no matter what the majority voted for.

Sadly, we've mostly gone away from that now. If the majority want to vote to steal the money of someone just because he is rich, or to force people to engage in commerce with a private company whether they want to or not, or to force people to violate their own personal religious beliefs, our Federal govt has declared that it does have the power to do these things. And our Supreme Court has declared that there is no limit to the power of the 536 thieving tyrants on Capitol Hill.

If you're going to invoke the silly class warfare argument, I'm going to point out that the highest tax brackets were insanely high compared to now from 1917-1981 (with just a couple years as exceptions).

And as far as "force people to violate their own personal religious beliefs," well, there's a notable federal judge who described freedom of religion as being intended to be a shield, not a sword. If your expression of religious freedom infringes on someone else's rights, that's your problem, and you're not protected by freedom of religion.

What the fluff you doing typing without caps? HUH?

So you think that the vision of a few dozen men in the 1770s should have more weight in 2014 than the views of tens of millions of people? The world changes. We live in a time that could not be foreseen when those limits were put in place. Our economic system. Our interdependence. Our global connectivity. There must be a system in place to expand those limits when absolutely necessary.

America's problems with government aren't because "the majority of people are dumb"; it's because the governmental system has been gamed through 200 years of people finding/creating loopholes to help their interests at the expense of others.

I agree with hawkeyee that the constitution shouldn't be treated as some sort of magical problem solving document that you can point to as a catchall. Thinking that everything would be fine if the US followed the constitution to the letter is like thinking all your problems will be solved by packing your bags and living under the sea. The current system seems to have degenerated to the point where the inequality is very out of whack and overall corruption (corporate and political) is rampant, so there will need to be a correction to that at some point.

Also, the other problem you're going to have with the US system of government is when the southern states gain more hispanic population than white and elections flip toward left leaning candidates and away from, generally, conservative candidates. That's the US' big domestic challenge for the 21st century: dealing with demographic changes.

eventually there will be no money left to use to buy their votes, and when the left cant sit there promising them money for nothing claimimg the conservatives will deport them all, itll be fun to see how.few people even.bother to vote

I know it is only tangential, but some of the issues discussed here have proven to be sticky subjects in foreign policy. The US has historically loved to support burgeoning democracies, but what happens when they elect radicals? Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood spring immediately to mind...

"blew" pastsence... You ment "blow" ,get educated you dumbfluff libtard!!!!


*runs very fast*

The way it was SUPPOSED to work was that only educated white male landowners should vote and that their elected officials would be more directly accountable to them because the ratio of congressmen to voters (educated white male landowners) was low enough that pretty much everyone who could vote would know their congressman quite well.

In other words, the way it was SUPPOSED to work has no relationship to reality today.

You can clean your anus and the surrounding area pretty well with a Venus razor.

Learn to spell deigo, ya dumb wop.

hawkeyee and twain...I love you both. spot on.

Atryn, you too. although, you forgot to mention that our founders, who were the government officials, did it voluntarily. that means they didn't get paid. If the conservatives wish so hard to return to those old days, then let's take away the pay our current politicians receive. (it'll never happen, and it wouldn't change anything. just pointing out the idiocy of thinking we can live today by the rules of life hundreds of years ago.)

TWIZ!

THE COMMITTEE OF ONE HAS ORDERED ME TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

"THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS THREAD BY SAM_DANGER DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]!, ITS STAFF, MANAGEMENT, SUPPLICANTS, VASSAL CLANS OR ADVERTISERS.

AS SUCH WE HAVE FORBIDDEN HIM FROM USING THE LETTERS OF POWER HERE.

EXCEPT FOR THIS DECLARATION.

AND ANY FURTHER DECLARATIONS WHICH WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE IN THE FUTURE. OR THE PAST."

HA!

SAM
SECRETARY OF DISCLAIMING,
THE MIGHTY CLAN [DANGER]!

the point is that you cannot keep a system designed in the 18th century the same over a long period of time, especially not a democratic-ish system.
The needs/wants of the population has changed dramatically over that time. We are no longer in a pre-industrial society (or even one similar to that in the industrial revolution). The urban/rural split is much different as is relative population and wealth distributions for better or worse. The oldest functioning democratic-like system is the british one and it evolved constantly over time (until the 20th century anyway) in response to such changes and changes in world view. Granted it wasn't always peaceful or willingly, but it adapted none the less which is why (in my opinion) it has endured. Well that and no one successfully invaded them in almost 1,000 years :P
Forms of government that refuse to adapt with the times ultimately stagnate and the countries suffer (see imperial china). This doesn't mean more or less democracy necessarily but it could mean changing the way folks are elected and some of the rules. An FPTP system in modern times does not make as much sense as it once did, just like balancing regional representation may not matter as much in some countries.

Besides you aren't truely free: try going outside with no money (or money equivalents) and see how long you last:P

srs question

why is this thread still around? why was it not SAM'ed on takeoff?

hawkeyee:

I think those few dozen men were a hell of a lot wiser than the politicians who supposedly represent the American people today. The founders studied history - examined the failed democracies and republics of the past - in an attempt to create a lasting government where men would be free to live their lives. Today's politicians study how to get elected, how to raise money, and how to trade favors.

The founders also said several things which turned out to be quite prophetic. My favorite is this:

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." -- Daniel Webster.

One of the conclusions they came to was that democratic governments which presided over smaller areas fared far better than those of empires. They came up with an ingenious solution to provide the benefits of smaller states in a large nation: Federalism. The larger, Federal, government is tasked only with protecting the liberty of its citizens, and the individual states are tasked with making all other laws.

The beauty of Federalism is... if we had not done away with it, and if you are correct that it is "absolutely necessary" for government agents to keep their boots planted firmly on our necks, then you would be proven right, and I would be proven a fool.

Under the Federalist system, states which do the best thing achieve the best results. Under the current system, it's the Federal Government's way or no way.

If it is "absolutely necessary" to have an FDA killing children who have MD by denying them access to drugs that actually work... Then people will flourish in states where the government sends armed agents in to raid sellers of raw milk, while the rest of us are all victimized daily by snake oil salesmen.

If it is "absolutely necessary" for the government to provide for everyone regardless of their personal choices in life, by stealing the money of those who have worked to achieve success... Then people who choose to live in states which have created a massive welfare system will all be well off, while the rest of us languish in poverty and hopelessness.

If it is "absolutely necessary" for the NSA to record every conversation we ever have.... Then states which follow the NSA's example will be safe, while the rest of us have to live in fear, wondering which building is going to explode today.

If it is "absolutely necessary" for the government to force us to make good dietary choices... Then people who live in bastions of tyranny like NYC or San Fran will all live to be 130, while the rest of us die of fat cancer at the age of 34.

If it is "absolutely necessary" for the government to rack up a debt of more than $150,000 per taxpayer... Then states which spend like there is no tomorrow will have infinite tomorrows, while those which practice fiscal sanity will face economic disaster.

I could go on and on (and on and on and on) but you probably get my point. Here's the greatest thing about Federalism though: If all of the horror stories that the politicians peddle are true - if liberty can only result in terrorism, poverty and misery - then people are free to vote with their feet. Those who wish to be ruled can move to a state which will rule them. Those who wish to live free can move to a state which will leave them alone. Everybody gets what they want.

That's the genius of the Constitution. Too bad we decided to shred it.

The constitution has already built into the means to change the Amendment Clause, unfortunately the liberals and those in power, mostly corrupted, just cant live with that The Document is as good as it was 230 years ago, if it needs changing then change it.

You are so far out of touch with current events it's not even funny. Christian version of Iran. You're some kinda joke teller right?

Sam, I assume that you have read the Federalist Papers, you're right, the federal system was designed to have limited powers ascribed to the federal government, and the bulk of law making, decision making made by the individual states. Since the Obama Regime, the erosion of states rights is at an all time high. He is doing more damage with his pen and phone than all previous presidents combined, and if you really want to worry about something. Imagine this...

After Obama's regime has run it's course, what if the next elected executive is a truly evil republican and he starts using the tools and precedents established by the libtard administration.

What then? Then, we would have a more than vicious tyranny, huh?

Nobody wants to think about that part of this current problem. If we don't fix it soon, it will metastatsize and things will be really fluffty.

lol. I hate to say this but u Americans really want the Canadian version of federalism when it comes to division of constitutional powers.unintended consequences, we set up our system to produce strong central government and weaker provinces which is sort of what I have now but wanted the opposite and the us is the reverse of us. The irony is that under our system Alabama could potentially have kept segregation (ability to override courts decisions on constitutional matters and total control of education labor and health and safety)
on that note I should say that the scouts has given what appears to me (I am not a lawyer) to be contradictory rulings very history on things like segregation

Getting elected is an important factor in a politicians career, to do that they do need money. Even the best meaning politicians find it very difficult to make much real change if they are unable to gain power.




The citizens of Colorado would probably disagree here. And eventually when enough states realize marijuana isn't the terrible drug people try to make it out to be, it could be legal nationwide just like booz. States have the ability to change things, the Federal Government included.



Those programs have been almost as ineffective as the TSA as far as twarting terrorism, but I sense you already know this.



There wasn't anything inheerently good about the Constitution. It was meant to be a protector of the rights of white males, generally reflections of the people that wrote the documents.

That is a large accusation. I would say that Obama is simply continuing practices that have been building for a long time before he was even born. I don't even think any of his actions have been anything that was not tried before, executives before him have been trying to pass healthcare legislation, his predecessor allowed the NSA to conduct sketchy wiretapping as well as granting bailouts in the form of hundreds of billions of dollars.

I think he is just following suit of his predecessors. One after the other the executive branch has been building its power; he is just the most recent example.

Thank you. You are one of the few I have seen who really sees it as it is.

The system as a whole was designed to have the states create their own local laws and to hold all the power. The fed was set up to negotiate foreign matters, to create a monetary system for the country, and to help the states to work together. Through the years/decades/etc., the Fed has been introducing programs to the states, where the Fed provides money, but only if the States do what the Fed wants them to do. So many things get done by the Fed, even though they are not supposed to be the one in charge. The states do have the choice to refuse what the fed says in these matters, but they do so by refusing the fed funding.

While I agree that the states should have most of the control, I believe the fed should be in control of our rights and freedoms. People should not be forced to move in order to live free. Many people cannot afford to just pick up and move. Some people are married to someone who won't allow them to move. These people should have their rights and freedom too.

I also believe that any law made that restricts the freedom of an individual (aside of those that are proven to harm others), basically victimless crimes, should not be instituted by the fed. They probably should not be instituted by the states either, but could be allowed under case by case basis determined by that state.

OK, I just reread that and it sounds like I'm contradicting myself.

I'll try to clear it up.

The fed should not make laws like which drugs can and cannot be used, or if prostitution is legal or not. This should be handled at the state level.

The fed should make laws to prevent people from being harmed. The fed should make laws that require the states to be on the same level as each other for education, so that no one area is teaching far lower than another area of the country.

The fed should protect the people, by preventing the states from taking away personal rights, like having non-missionary sex in the privacy of their own home or eating bacon.

Sam, the greatest thing about the Constitution was that it was designed with change in mind. If it was as rigid as you, and apparently others, would like it to be, we'd have had to create a new document somewhere down the line. Hell, the founders didn't anticipate the party system, which started almost immediately after they ratified the thing, and that has had an incredibly huge impact on the entire governance of the country.

And as far as federalism goes, there are some thing that are just too big for each state to handle...Is it a coincidence that the biggest expansion of federal power happened after the Great Depression? That being said, it's a pendulum, it shifts back and forth. The 90s saw more power being returned to the states, and now it is shifting back the other way.

While I agree spchavel that Obama is just following suit of his predecessors, I do believe that the Executive branch is more out of control that it has ever been before. Of course, this would not have been possible if not for many former presidents clearing the path, combined with a general apathy of the majority of the population. We can't blame anyone but ourselves for allowing this to happen.

just a point of note. last time i checked US Debt Clock, we only owned 25% of our assets. the banks owned 75% of that crap that we claims to be ours.

interesting. i somehow double quoted. bah. maybe Archaic has a Wrigley's feminine twin.

Double your pleasure, double your troll :-)

Please get past the land-owning white males thing. They were the only ones typically educated at the time and had a chance of voting with their head instead of something that sounded good.

Segregation was dying a natural death in the south. Equality typically happens when the underside steps upto the plate, not when you are told to view someone as your equal simply because ....there they are, they must be your equal for having survived being born. None of their, quite possibly limited, choices after the fact matter. Them existing is all the proof you need.

I figure Hillary has 2016 locked up all ready if she just runs for it. Which sucks but there it is. Repubs cant seem to get their heads out of their asses to come up with a strong candidate. At this point, I'd vote for anyone who took a stand a single time and didnt flinch in the way of opposition.

juice, its the fed that is telling people that bacon(well bologna) isnt food, not the states. Thanks Mrs Obama for fluffing more fluff up.