|
|
On June 20 2012 10:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Well, I'm still interested in hearing your reasoning, if you have any.
I'm not sure what kind of reasoning you're looking for. If the U.S. Government isn't supposed to be involved in things other than what is set out in the Constitution, what kind of reasoning is needed ? It doesn't matter what Keynes says, or what works in Australia. If the U.S. Constitution sets out a certain restriction upon the role of government, how much reasoning between what others want matters ?
|
On June 20 2012 09:56 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:So not only am I disenfranchised from american politics, I'm disenfranchised from the tl thread ABOUT american politics? My life sucks  @Kaitlin: a) that's not reasoning, its a statement of principle which follows from reasoning which remains unstated b) how do you interpret the term "Welfare"? edit: anyway, how can you talk about politics without talking about political philosophy? Did you notice that it say "promote" the general welfare ? Not "provide", "insure", etc ? I can't speak for other countries, but this one is based on the premise that the People are free to pursue their own success or failures. The Government is supposed to protect us from other countries, etc. The government isn't supposed to tell you how to raise your kids, what to feed them, etc.
"The Constitution belongs to the living and not to the dead." - Thomas Jefferson
if you want to take that route.
We must make changes to suit a changing world.
|
On June 20 2012 10:55 Lightwip wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 09:56 Kaitlin wrote:On June 20 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:So not only am I disenfranchised from american politics, I'm disenfranchised from the tl thread ABOUT american politics? My life sucks @Kaitlin: a) that's not reasoning, its a statement of principle which follows from reasoning which remains unstated b) how do you interpret the term "Welfare"? edit: anyway, how can you talk about politics without talking about political philosophy? Did you notice that it say "promote" the general welfare ? Not "provide", "insure", etc ? I can't speak for other countries, but this one is based on the premise that the People are free to pursue their own success or failures. The Government is supposed to protect us from other countries, etc. The government isn't supposed to tell you how to raise your kids, what to feed them, etc. "The Constitution belongs to the living and not to the dead." - Thomas Jefferson if you want to take that route. We must make changes to suit a changing world.
I have no problem with that. Constitutional Amendments are the vehicle provided to make that change.
|
On June 20 2012 09:56 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 07:18 sam!zdat wrote:So not only am I disenfranchised from american politics, I'm disenfranchised from the tl thread ABOUT american politics? My life sucks @Kaitlin: a) that's not reasoning, its a statement of principle which follows from reasoning which remains unstated b) how do you interpret the term "Welfare"? edit: anyway, how can you talk about politics without talking about political philosophy? Did you notice that it say "promote" the general welfare ? Not "provide", "insure", etc ? I can't speak for other countries, but this one is based on the premise that the People are free to pursue their own success or failures. The Government is supposed to protect us from other countries, etc. The government isn't supposed to tell you how to raise your kids, what to feed them, etc.
Uh... the government doesn't tell us how to raise your kids and what to feed them...
And actually if the government's goal is to promote the general welfare, that may indeed involve providing and insuring things for the american populace to promote said welfare. I mean how could possibly look at a vague-ass clause like that and say "see the government can't do anything!"
Did you know that people have the right to a landline phone connecting to their house? You read that correctly, I said a right. Of course I think that's going to repealed soon due to the advent of the power of wireless networks.
|
What I'm saying is, I don't hold any particular reverence for the Constitution. I think it is very out of date and it's time for something new.
What do you see as limits for things the government should not do, and why?
|
On June 20 2012 10:43 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 10:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Well, I'm still interested in hearing your reasoning, if you have any. I'm not sure what kind of reasoning you're looking for. If the U.S. Government isn't supposed to be involved in things other than what is set out in the Constitution, what kind of reasoning is needed ? It doesn't matter what Keynes says, or what works in Australia. If the U.S. Constitution sets out a certain restriction upon the role of government, how much reasoning between what others want matters ?
I'm pretty sure even a prelaw student has an understanding the constitution was meant to be dynamic in nature (in the tradition of the common law "living document" doctrine) and be interpreted as time changes. Even if you take away the Framer's intent of the constitution's interpretative nature, you still have realpolitik to deal with, ambition and time will overrule the most expressly lain out statute.
If you like to live in a prescriptive fantasy world or believe we live in one, well then there's not much I can do for you anyways.
|
On June 20 2012 14:30 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 10:43 Kaitlin wrote:On June 20 2012 10:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Well, I'm still interested in hearing your reasoning, if you have any. I'm not sure what kind of reasoning you're looking for. If the U.S. Government isn't supposed to be involved in things other than what is set out in the Constitution, what kind of reasoning is needed ? It doesn't matter what Keynes says, or what works in Australia. If the U.S. Constitution sets out a certain restriction upon the role of government, how much reasoning between what others want matters ? I'm pretty sure even a prelaw student has an understanding the constitution was meant to be dynamic in nature (in the tradition of the common law "living document" doctrine) and be interpreted as time changes. Even if you take away the Framer's intent of the constitution's interpretative nature, you still have realpolitik to deal with, ambition and time will overrule the most expressly lain out statute. If you like to live in a prescriptive fantasy world or believe we live in one, well then there's not much I can do for you anyways.
I assure you as a lawyer that there is great debate over whether and the extent to which the Constitution is flexible.
|
On June 20 2012 14:30 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 10:43 Kaitlin wrote:On June 20 2012 10:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Well, I'm still interested in hearing your reasoning, if you have any. I'm not sure what kind of reasoning you're looking for. If the U.S. Government isn't supposed to be involved in things other than what is set out in the Constitution, what kind of reasoning is needed ? It doesn't matter what Keynes says, or what works in Australia. If the U.S. Constitution sets out a certain restriction upon the role of government, how much reasoning between what others want matters ? I'm pretty sure even a prelaw student has an understanding the constitution was meant to be dynamic in nature (in the tradition of the common law "living document" doctrine) and be interpreted as time changes. Even if you take away the Framer's intent of the constitution's interpretative nature, you still have realpolitik to deal with, ambition and time will overrule the most expressly lain out statute. If you like to live in a prescriptive fantasy world or believe we live in one, well then there's not much I can do for you anyways.
The dynamic nature of the U.S. Constitution is the process of Amendments. Court interpretation is "supposed" to only specify what is meant by what is written, not to create new rights. I don't doubt that there is a right to having a landline installed at one's home, but that would be one example of Judicial Activism. Of course a right to a landline in previous days now equates to a cell phone, and it's ridiculous to think that everyone has a "right" to a cell phone... Just because you can't get a Constitutional Amendment passed to change the Constitution to your liking (not "your" liking, just anyone's), doesn't mean you either a) disregard the Constitution, b) write it off as "out-dated, or c) resort to Judicial Activism.
|
On June 20 2012 11:19 sam!zdat wrote:
What I'm saying is, I don't hold any particular reverence for the Constitution. I think it is very out of date and it's time for something new.
What do you see as limits for things the government should not do, and why?
I find this type of thinking both dangerous and illogical.
If the Constution is indeed acting inefficient in some way then amendments can be added; the framers were intelligent enough to understand that society does not stay constant and change is necessary with time. Stating however that the entire thing needs to be thrown out is pretty drastic and frankly almost ignorant. There is a reason why the American society has been one of (if not the most) sucessful entities throughout the past two centuries and there is a reason why so many other nations base their political structure or overall framework in a very similar manner. Just because things aren't perfect or not as good as you believe/want them to be currently does not mean the system is not working, hell it means the system IS working, as some of the most basic principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were technically about identifying flawed systems and correcting them. Yes our current situation is not amazing, but it's hardly the worst thing we've seen yet, not even close. Tossing out the Constitution would be a major overreaction and would do far more damage than good. (if it would even do any)
As for your second question, the government should be based around making sure that everyone has certain rights, and protecting those rights from being violated. Of course, many people disagree as to what those rights should be.
|
On June 20 2012 14:50 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 14:30 forgottendreams wrote:On June 20 2012 10:43 Kaitlin wrote:On June 20 2012 10:21 sam!zdat wrote:
Well, I'm still interested in hearing your reasoning, if you have any. I'm not sure what kind of reasoning you're looking for. If the U.S. Government isn't supposed to be involved in things other than what is set out in the Constitution, what kind of reasoning is needed ? It doesn't matter what Keynes says, or what works in Australia. If the U.S. Constitution sets out a certain restriction upon the role of government, how much reasoning between what others want matters ? I'm pretty sure even a prelaw student has an understanding the constitution was meant to be dynamic in nature (in the tradition of the common law "living document" doctrine) and be interpreted as time changes. Even if you take away the Framer's intent of the constitution's interpretative nature, you still have realpolitik to deal with, ambition and time will overrule the most expressly lain out statute. If you like to live in a prescriptive fantasy world or believe we live in one, well then there's not much I can do for you anyways. The dynamic nature of the U.S. Constitution is the process of Amendments. Court interpretation is "supposed" to only specify what is meant by what is written, not to create new rights. I don't doubt that there is a right to having a landline installed at one's home, but that would be one example of Judicial Activism. Of course a right to a landline in previous days now equates to a cell phone, and it's ridiculous to think that everyone has a "right" to a cell phone... Just because you can't get a Constitutional Amendment passed to change the Constitution to your liking (not "your" liking, just anyone's), doesn't mean you either a) disregard the Constitution, b) write it off as "out-dated, or c) resort to Judicial Activism.
I can only tell you how it is and not how its supposed to be, judicial activism and the "flexibility" of the constitution as xdaunt pointed out will always remain no matter how much it displeases you. Lawyers are more then welcome to challenge to scope of the flexibility exerted over the constitution by the three branches.
|
While recent events make it hard to really believe in the long-term reliability of the Constitution, it's honestly just a pretty bad time for it. We're in the middle of an extremely braindead Republican Congress that opposes even non-partisan bills on the grounds that it would help Obama if the bill is passed.
Most Congresses are more willing to negotiate than this one. The people to blame, of course, are the two Bushes. This trend of Republican Congressional idiocy began with the surprise Clinton>Bush (Republicans HATED Clinton and did everything they could to sabotage him) and continued with the extremely aggressive and polarizing campaigns of Bush #2.
|
On June 20 2012 15:28 Lightwip wrote:
While recent events make it hard to really believe in the long-term reliability of the Constitution, it's honestly just a pretty bad time for it. We're in the middle of an extremely braindead Republican Congress that opposes even non-partisan bills on the grounds that it would help Obama if the bill is passed.
Most Congresses are more willing to negotiate than this one. The people to blame, of course, are the two Bushes. This trend of Republican Congressional idiocy began with the surprise Clinton>Bush (Republicans HATED Clinton and did everything they could to sabotage him) and continued with the extremely aggressive and polarizing campaigns of Bush #2.
So, the fault lies with those with whom you disagree. I've never seen this before.
|
On June 20 2012 15:40 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 15:28 Lightwip wrote:
While recent events make it hard to really believe in the long-term reliability of the Constitution, it's honestly just a pretty bad time for it. We're in the middle of an extremely braindead Republican Congress that opposes even non-partisan bills on the grounds that it would help Obama if the bill is passed.
Most Congresses are more willing to negotiate than this one. The people to blame, of course, are the two Bushes. This trend of Republican Congressional idiocy began with the surprise Clinton>Bush (Republicans HATED Clinton and did everything they could to sabotage him) and continued with the extremely aggressive and polarizing campaigns of Bush #2. So, the fault lies with those with whom you disagree. I've never seen this before.
I don't mind the other party, really. I completely disagree with Reagan, but I think he made a good president because he was willing to compromise.
That's what it comes down to: the willingness to make concessions for the greater good. Modern Republicans are very bad at this.
If the Democrats do the same, then I blame them for this disfunctional Congress as well. But as luck would have it, we're in a Republican Congress right now, so they're the ones who are put on the spot.
|
First two years of the current Administration was entirely controlled by a super-majority of Democrats. What got done besides Health Care, which is largely considered about to be overturned ? Republicans could do nothing to stop anything. What did the Democrats accomplish in two years ? Other than get themselves voted out of office at the next election.
|
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the filibuster.
|
Perhaps you aren't familiar with "super-majority". Repubs couldn't fillibuster. That is why Scott Brown was so important. He gave them enough to filibuster. Two years into the Obama Administration.
|
The reasons why I'm going to vote for Obama in 2012 election.
1) Created more jobs in 4 years than G.W. Bush did in 8.
2) Inherited a recession from the Republicans.
3) Republican fillabuster is out of control. We are in a recession and they refuse to pass any legislation to get people working again.
4) The debt is due in large part to the Republicans. They led the country to two wars on our nations credit card. They also passed tax cuts on the top 10% of earners. Adding more debt.
5) Mitt Romney is a far right wing conservative during the primaries. The republicans are controlled by a very far right wing sector. EG) Indiana Senator was ousted by a Tea Party member. In the 80's this senator was considered to be the most conservative in the Senate. By today's standards of the republicans he is too moderate.
6) Obama has done a terrific job of getting things done. Healthcare (most legal scholars believe the SCOTUS will not vote it down. Saved American car companies and jobs. Unemployment is 8.1% it would have easily gone up if he hadn't taken the measures he did.
7) Lastly, Republicans want to double student loans in July. Like most people I can't afford college without loans. Most of my friends who have graduated from college are in substantial debt. Unlike, our parents who had government loans, which led to the largest middle class in human history.
|
On June 20 2012 16:44 Kaitlin wrote:
First two years of the current Administration was entirely controlled by a super-majority of Democrats. What got done besides Health Care, which is largely considered about to be overturned ? Republicans could do nothing to stop anything. What did the Democrats accomplish in two years ? Other than get themselves voted out of office at the next election.
Also it is important to note that on any matter of importance there is a fundamental difference between Democratic and Republican voting blocks at the national level. Both parties have systems to enforce a party agenda through cohesiveness but go about it in very different ways. Republicans most notably forsake all political wrangling in favor of a strong arm approach that has worked very well for them in recent years while the Democrats are still playing it old school.
In practical terms this means that Republicans vote like a machine (100% compliance) while Democrats vote like people (who naturally have some conservative and some liberal views). So even having a majority party presence does not guarantee a majority voting presence for Democrats like it does Republicans.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is a whole other matter.
|
On June 20 2012 16:44 Kaitlin wrote:
First two years of the current Administration was entirely controlled by a super-majority of Democrats.
Not true.
|
On June 20 2012 17:04 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 16:44 Kaitlin wrote:
First two years of the current Administration was entirely controlled by a super-majority of Democrats. Not true.
Yes, not true at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
