To Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Greens

[iustitia]

I'm curious, what federal departments and independent agencies do you support abolishing? This is not a trick question.

[Agravan]

Department of Education (Indoctrination), EPA, IRS..

[nic34]

You remembered, Gov. Perry....! :grin:

[nic34]

Replace Dept. of Defense with Dept. of Peace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace#Provisions_of_the_Kucinich_Bil l

[Agravan]

Replace Dept. of Defense with Dept. of Peace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace#Provisions_of_the_Kucinich_Bil l

And throw flowers at the people trying to kill us, right?

[kilgram]

Replace Dept. of Defense with Dept. of Peace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace#Provisions_of_the_Kucinich_Bil l
Nothing.

MMM, I would abolish all the Dpt. of War aka Defense.

[kilgram]

And throw flowers at the people trying to kill us, right?
Who is trying to kill you? :) Enemies everywhere... Where I left the alluminium caps...

[GrassrootsConservative]

IRS and NSA first. Then DEA.

That's all for now. We'll see how many problems those agencies removed fixes, and then we'll talk some more.

[kilgram]

IRS and NSA first. Then DEA.

That's all for now. We'll see how many problems those agencies removed fixes, and then we'll talk some more.
IRS? IRS is the Internal Revenue Service?

[GrassrootsConservative]

IRS? IRS is the Internal Revenue Service?

Yes sir. Taxes are strong-armed robbery.

[Blackrook]

The Founding Fathers started with the Department of War, the Department of State, the Department of Treasury, and the Post Office.

We can keep those.

[Chris]

Education and Fed.

For starters.


Nothing in the Constitution empowers government to have created either.

[nic34]

IRS? IRS is the Internal Revenue Service?

Abolishing the IRS first is like trying to stop a speeding car by taking away all the gas stations.... :shocked:

[Blackrook]

The out-of-control growth of the federal goverrnment was made inevitable when they amended the Constitution so that Senators were chosen by the voters rather than the state legislatures. If we're going to do anything about stopping federal growth, we need to repeal that amendment.

[Chris]

Abolishing the IRS first is like trying to stop a speeding car by taking away all the gas stations.... :shocked:

Works for me. Starve the beast!

[GrassrootsConservative]

Works for me. Starve the beast!

I am glad nic took the initiative to call it a "speeding" car instead of just a car. He acknowledges that the machine is out of control and going faster than what is safe.

[Chris]

Speeding is close to spending.

[nic34]

The out-of-control growth of the federal goverrnment was made inevitable when they amended the Constitution so that Senators were chosen by the voters rather than the state legislatures. If we're going to do anything about stopping federal growth, we need to repeal that amendment.

.... that's right, let the corporations buy your senators jus' like the good ol' days!

[Chris]

.... that's right, let the corporations buy your senators jus' like the good ol' days!



Those good old days ended with passage of the 16th amendment, nic, after which government could rob us directly.

[bladimz]

Replace Dept. of Defense with Dept. of Peace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace#Provisions_of_the_Kucinich_Bil lI'd just revise the name to what it is: The Military Industrial Complex.

[bladimz]

Nobody likes the IRS. That's a given. So abolish the IRS... and make up another name; we're still obligated to pay taxes; where else will the government find the funds to feed their MIC?

Oh, wait. I forgot about individual donations. That would do it.

[nic34]

Those good old days ended with passage of the 16th amendment, nic, after which government could rob us directly.

But we all know you wouldn't stop there....

Repeal the 14th – eliminate ethnic diversity.
Repeal the 16th – bankrupt our government.
Repeal the 17th – consolidate power in the states where it's easier to buy politicians under the radar.
And reform the 1st – become a theocracy like Iran.

......naturally, from “strict Constitutionalists.”

[iustitia]

I was actually interested in getting personal answers rather than bickering and ad hominems. Is accusing eachother of being racist theocrats really prudent?

[Chris]

But we all know you wouldn't stop there....

Repeal the 14th – eliminate ethnic diversity.
Repeal the 16th – bankrupt our government.
Repeal the 17th – consolidate power in the states where it's easier to buy politicians under the radar.
And reform the 1st – become a theocracy like Iran.

......naturally, from “strict Constitutionalists.”

First ten are fine.

So is 14 "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

1st aims to keep government out of religion, think you got it backwards.

[Green Arrow]

An easier answer would be for me to tell you what I'd keep:

Post Office

Whew. That was easy.

[Mainecoons]

I'm curious, what federal departments and independent agencies do you support abolishing? This is not a trick question.

Department of Education
Severely restrict EPA and staff it with engineers and scientists, not left wing lawyers.
Cut Department of Offense in half. New philosophy is to defend this hemisphere.

[patrickt]

And throw flowers at the people trying to kill us, right?

No, they'll gas them and nuke them but they'll sing Kumbaya while the do it and blame George Bush.

[patrickt]

Nothing.

MMM, I would abolish all the Dpt. of War aka Defense.

Says the man whose signature says, "Work and Fight for the Revolution". Sounds like a call to war, doesn't it?

[zelmo1234]

Replace Dept. of Defense with Dept. of Peace:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Peace#Provisions_of_the_Kucinich_Bil l

Interesting the one department that the constitution actually give the government to have?

[zelmo1234]

Abolishing the IRS first is like trying to stop a speeding car by taking away all the gas stations.... :shocked:

And in the end the speeding car will stop! won't it!

[patrickt]

Abolishing the IRS first is like trying to stop a speeding car by taking away all the gas stations.... :shocked:

Not at all. The IRS has billions in uncollected taxes, some from federal workers, and they pay out billions for bogus Earned Income Tax Credit claims. The IRS not only collects taxes but redistributes income on their own. Oh, and now they're involved in health care. Quit laughing. It's true. They're the leg-breakers for the new "caretakers".

[zelmo1234]

But we all know you wouldn't stop there....

Repeal the 14th – eliminate ethnic diversity.
Repeal the 16th – bankrupt our government.
Repeal the 17th – consolidate power in the states where it's easier to buy politicians under the radar.
And reform the 1st – become a theocracy like Iran.

......naturally, from “strict Constitutionalists.”

Not that I agree with these, but if you wanted this done, you het the nail on the head,

YOU HAVE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION!

Nor introduce new departments and give them regulations powers that are not voted on by congress and signed into law by the president!

Now who would do that? Both parties, but the Bamster has a real love of Regulations!

[zelmo1234]

First would be the DOE and replace this with a panel of 5 people appointed by each state, that meet once a year to discuss educational standard of public education, and set guidelines for minimum requirements.

Let the States decide how they meet those requirements. and tie funding to the achievement of those goals. Us the savings from the abolition of the DOE to increase funding to the school!

[zelmo1234]

Next take the IRS and abolish it totally!

Replace the income tax with a national sales tax collected by the states!

Add a 5% tariff on all imports and use the Tariffs and 15% of the sales tax collected to fund the military, while reviewing each and every military contract to remove all price gouging and profiteering!

[zelmo1234]

Third! abolish the EPA and set up the a committee that will work with another 5 person group from each state to set the regulations standard for the country. and then have these regulations made into law!

Then end the ATF and actually all federal law enforcement agencies, including the boarder patrol! create a new FLES (Federal Law Enforcement Service they would take over the duties of the FBI, the STF, the SS, Homeland Security!

These would be very well trained and educated people that used there expertise to work with the state law enforcement agencies to enforce the laws.

The Boarder patrol would be taken over by the Military and the unlawful entry into the USA would be considered an invasion of the USA

[zelmo1234]

Sell off the post office to UPS, and FED X and any other carrier that wanted to do it!

We don't need a government run mail delivery system when private firms can do it faster and better! and without the high cost of government workers

[zelmo1234]

The NSA, We have the CIA to monitor and collect intelligence off shore and would have the FLES to work with them on any threats they feel are happening in the USA, we don't need to spy on the American people!

If there is a security threat, use the judicial system to obtain required warrants and use law enforcement on US citizens.

If it is a threat outside of the USA, that is what the military is for!

[zelmo1234]

HHS Health and Human Services

Replaced with another 5 person commission from each state that sets that standards for medical practices, and drug approval, and helps each state set up programs to help the people as they see fit! Set that costs and services provided by Medicare/Medicaid, and cost of living increases for SS. Any enforcement issues would be enforced by the FLES

[zelmo1234]

Reform the Department of agriculture, and move the welfare and food stamps to the commission that replaces the HHS.

Combine the FDA with the Dept of AG for food safety, and for the drug part it goes to the commission that replaces the HHS

Major job of this Department would be to keep the nations food supply and farming practices safe, and with the aid of the University system help to improve modern farming practices!

[donttread]

I'm curious, what federal departments and independent agencies do you support abolishing? This is not a trick question.

I believe that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to dictate education, drug policy or human service programs within the states. So I would abolish departments that oversee those things.

[zelmo1234]

As you can see I would off load a lot of responsibility to the states, and dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal government!

And last this would be accompanied by a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT!

This would assure that the USA would live within it's means, and by moving most ot the actual work load to the states, you cold do it cheaper with less administration expense.

Then I would abolish one last thing and create one more department, and institute a temporary tax!

Abolish the Federal Reserve banking system along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Replace them with the Department of Currency, and Deposit insurance. Like any other Insurance on the planet if you wanted Deposit insurance, you would pay a fee for that insurance. They would regulate the currents of the USA and the goal would be to slowly return to the Gold standard.

And the Tax????

There would still be an income tax! for a while, starting with !% for every worker, and going to 5% on those earning over 100k 10% on those earning over 500K

This would be used to pay off the balance of the national debt and could be use on principle only, the interest would be paid out of the regular budget, after the debt was finally paid it would remain in place until such a time when the nation had a trillion dollar war fund

And at the first use of military troops, it would be re instated to pay for any and all wars, making the people real hesitant to approve of un needed military action!

[Peter1469]

As you can see I would off load a lot of responsibility to the states, and dramatically reduce the size and scope of the federal government!

And last this would be accompanied by a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT!

This would assure that the USA would live within it's means, and by moving most ot the actual work load to the states, you cold do it cheaper with less administration expense.

Then I would abolish one last thing and create one more department, and institute a temporary tax!

Abolish the Federal Reserve banking system along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Replace them with the Department of Currency, and Deposit insurance. Like any other Insurance on the planet if you wanted Deposit insurance, you would pay a fee for that insurance. They would regulate the currents of the USA and the goal would be to slowly return to the Gold standard.

And the Tax????

There would still be an income tax! for a while, starting with !% for every worker, and going to 5% on those earning over 100k 10% on those earning over 500K

This would be used to pay off the balance of the national debt and could be use on principle only, the interest would be paid out of the regular budget, after the debt was finally paid it would remain in place until such a time when the nation had a trillion dollar war fund

And at the first use of military troops, it would be re instated to pay for any and all wars, making the people real hesitant to approve of un needed military action!

That may get you assassinated.....

[jillian]

Department of Education (Indoctrination), EPA, IRS..

yes, because kids should be taught that the world is 6,000 years old and know nothing.

and corporatists should be able to destroy our air and water, because, of course, G-d will protect us from ourselves (or even better, you'll get your armageddon)

and there shouldn't be any money for government…

lmao.

[Chris]

yes, because kids should be taught that the world is 6,000 years old and know nothing.

and corporatists should be able to destroy our air and water, because, of course, G-d will protect us from ourselves (or even better, you'll get your armageddon)

and there shouldn't be any money for government…

lmao.



Agravan said nothing of the sort.

It would be fun to watch you and exotix have a debate, each response totally disconnected from the previous, sot of like Benjy in Faulkner's Sound and Fury, except just a repetition of stale partisan talking points.

[Peter1469]

yes, because kids should be taught that the world is 6,000 years old and know nothing.

and corporatists should be able to destroy our air and water, because, of course, G-d will protect us from ourselves (or even better, you'll get your armageddon)

and there shouldn't be any money for government…

lmao.

Not very many people still believe the 6000 year old earth theory.

[Toro]

Not very many people still believe the 6000 year old earth theory.

Correct.

Nearly half of Americans think the world is 10,000 years old.

Big difference.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mtmhrggv0u278tchtddptw.gif

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

[Polecat]

Looking at it bang for buck wise I would start by eliminating the office of presidency.

[Contrails]

The Founding Fathers started with the Department of War, the Department of State, the Department of Treasury, and the Post Office.

We can keep those.

How do we address today's challenges with 200 year old solutions?

[Peter1469]

How do we address today's challenges with 200 year old solutions?

The Constitution's conception of the role of the federal government is timeless. And it includes two ways to change it.

[Chris]

How do we address today's challenges with 200 year old solutions?


What challenges do you speak of?

[Rebel Son]

Haven't read the thread and don't need to. Almost all of the programs now need to be abolished and/or reviewed. Look at what has been passed in the past couple years alone.

Our constitution has been trampled on like never before.

[countryboy]

Haven't read the thread and don't need to. Almost all of the programs now need to be abolished and/or reviewed. Look at what has been passed in the past couple years alone.

Our constitution has been trampled on like never before.

This. ^^^^^

[Libhater]

This. ^^^^^

I second...THIS with a caveat. We must never touch or try to downplay, defund, or make little of our military and it's importance to our sovereignty as a nation.

[The Xl]

I second...THIS with a caveat. We must never touch or try to downplay, defund, or make little of our military and it's importance to our sovereignty as a nation.

We can stop our wars and slash its budget, it's totally overkill.

[countryboy]

We can stop our wars and slash its budget, it's totally overkill.
We don't even need to weaken it by doing so. Just stop buying $200 hammers. CUT.THE.WASTE.

[countryboy]

I second...THIS with a caveat. We must never touch or try to downplay, defund, or make little of our military and it's importance to our sovereignty as a nation.
And, as an added bonus, that's actually CONSTITUTIONAL.

[Agravan]

yes, because kids should be taught that the world is 6,000 years old and know nothing.

and corporatists should be able to destroy our air and water, because, of course, G-d will protect us from ourselves (or even better, you'll get your armageddon)

and there shouldn't be any money for government…

lmao.

really? Please tell me what else I believe in, since you seem to be the authority on all knowledge.

[zelmo1234]

How do we address today's challenges with 200 year old solutions?

Actually have you ever heard the more things change, the more things stay the same.

putting people in charge of their own destiny, instead of trying to keep them like sheep has worked in the past and will work in the future!

[GrassrootsConservative]

How do we address today's challenges with 200 year old solutions?

Your Liberal "solutions" are way older than 200 years old. Our American-based solutions have been tried and worked until your silly Liberal "solutions" came and slaughtered them with corruption and lies.

Shame on you. Taking a perfectly working system and shitting all over it.

My question is this: How do you propose we use outdated Liberalism to solve the current problems that Liberalism has created in America?

[Contrails]

What challenges do you speak of?

Our founding fathers didn't have to manage the national air space so 720 million people could fly safely each year. They didn't have to worry about the air and water pollution the industrial revolution brought with it. There was no need to manage the electromagnetic spectrum so all of their electronic devices could coexist. With a life expectancy of less than 50 years, there was no need for retirement programs. Since there was practically no medicine to speak of (germ theory hadn't been discovered yet) there was no need to track diseases or regulate drugs. Shall I go on?

[Contrails]

The Constitution's conception of the role of the federal government is timeless. And it includes two ways to change it.

While the role of the federal government hasn't changed in 200 years, its organizational structure certainly has, and all within the bounds of the Constitution.

[iustitia]

While the role of the federal government hasn't changed in 200 years, its organizational structure certainly has, and all within the bounds of the Constitution.

wut.

[Green Arrow]

Your Liberal "solutions" are way older than 200 years old. Our American-based solutions have been tried and worked until your silly Liberal "solutions" came and slaughtered them with corruption and lies.

Shame on you. Taking a perfectly working system and shitting all over it.

My question is this: How do you propose we use outdated Liberalism to solve the current problems that Liberalism has created in America?

That's an extremely simplistic and partisan way of looking at things. It's also wrong. The constitution failed with the presidency of George Washington. It continued to fail during the presidency of John Adams. Briefly, the rise of the federal government was halted with the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. It would continue to grow with his successor, not stopping until Coolidge. It hasn't halted since.

[Contrails]

Your Liberal "solutions" are way older than 200 years old. Our American-based solutions have been tried and worked until your silly Liberal "solutions" came and slaughtered them with corruption and lies.

Shame on you. Taking a perfectly working system and shitting all over it.

My question is this: How do you propose we use outdated Liberalism to solve the current problems that Liberalism has created in America?

Since America was founded on the ideas of Liberalism, I find your question absurd. Or are you seriously suggesting that Totalitarianism is the solution?

[zelmo1234]

Since America was founded on the ideas of Liberalism, I find your question absurd. Or are you seriously suggesting that Totalitarianism is the solution?

Freedom is the answer! And if all the things that you listed earlier are so important, not saying that they are not important, then the politicians, and the people should have been passing amendments to allow the government to regulate them, instead of Presidents, both republican and democrat just passing regulations with the stroke of a pen, and not even a vote by elected officials

That is what I have issues with!

[Peter1469]

While the role of the federal government hasn't changed in 200 years, its organizational structure certainly has, and all within the bounds of the Constitution.

We disagree with that last part.

[countryboy]

While the role of the federal government hasn't changed in 200 years, its organizational structure certainly has, and all within the bounds of the Constitution.Please demonstrate the constitutional basis for the dept of education.

[Alyosha]

I'm curious, what federal departments and independent agencies do you support abolishing? This is not a trick question.

Ideally all of them, but if we HAVE to keep some bit of bloated bureacracy then I'd throw most of them out and keep the Post Office (it was in the Constiution), some form of the DOD, the FBI (yes, shocker from me), and Transportation maybe (liberals love their roads and I wouldn't want to make them unhappy).

[Chris]

Our founding fathers didn't have to manage the national air space so 720 million people could fly safely each year. They didn't have to worry about the air and water pollution the industrial revolution brought with it. There was no need to manage the electromagnetic spectrum so all of their electronic devices could coexist. With a life expectancy of less than 50 years, there was no need for retirement programs. Since there was practically no medicine to speak of (germ theory hadn't been discovered yet) there was no need to track diseases or regulate drugs. Shall I go on?


For one thing, you're revealing you don't really comprehend the nature of the Constitution. It's not a set of specific laws to deal with specific problems, but, as peter suggested earlier, a set of timeless principles, guideline, limitations on the purposes and powers we the people grant government.

For another, you without any justification whatsoever insist the issues and problems we as a society face must be solved by government.

In effect, you haven't answered my question. You've listed some technological problems technology may or may not be able to fix provided we a left free enough to innovate.

[Chris]

That's an extremely simplistic and partisan way of looking at things. It's also wrong. The constitution failed with the presidency of George Washington. It continued to fail during the presidency of John Adams. Briefly, the rise of the federal government was halted with the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. It would continue to grow with his successor, not stopping until Coolidge. It hasn't halted since.



And all, as contrails says, "all within the bounds of the Constitution"--depending greatly on how you interpret the Constitution.

[Alyosha]

While the role of the federal government hasn't changed in 200 years, its organizational structure certainly has, and all within the bounds of the Constitution.

No.

[Green Arrow]

And all, as contrails says, "all within the bounds of the Constitution"--depending greatly on how you interpret the Constitution.

Contrails was wrong.

[bobgnote]

I'm curious, what federal departments and independent agencies do you support abolishing? This is not a trick question.

The ones, with three-letter abbreviations should all be abolished, pending a new constitution.

Agency one should be The Constitutional Oversight Agency, to preside, over due process, to include security regulation and ethics enforcement.

Even enforcement and equal substantive and procedural rights must be specified, IN A VIABLE CONSTITUTION, or all that existing bureaucracy is merely corrupt persons, profiteering.

[Contrails]

We disagree with that last part.


Please demonstrate the constitutional basis for the dept of education.

Article I, Section 8, authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments while Article II, Section 2, authorizes the President to appoint heads of those departments. The Department of Education, like any other federal agency, is completely within the bounds of the Constitution. You can question the constitutionality of specific laws they are tasked with enforcing, but there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about the department itself.

[Contrails]

For one thing, you're revealing you don't really comprehend the nature of the Constitution. It's not a set of specific laws to deal with specific problems, but, as peter suggested earlier, a set of timeless principles, guideline, limitations on the purposes and powers we the people grant government.

For another, you without any justification whatsoever insist the issues and problems we as a society face must be solved by government.

In effect, you haven't answered my question. You've listed some technological problems technology may or may not be able to fix provided we a left free enough to innovate.

And once again, you demonstrate your inability to comprehend what others may or may not have said. Where did I ever claim that the Constitution, and not the federal departments and independent agencies which are the subject of this thread, was the solution? My response was in reply to Blackrook's suggestion that we stick to the departments that existed when this country was new. I'm simply pointing out that the organization of our government has and must change with the circumstances.

[countryboy]

Article I, Section 8, authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments while Article II, Section 2, authorizes the President to appoint heads of those departments. The Department of Education, like any other federal agency, is completely within the bounds of the Constitution. You can question the constitutionality of specific laws they are tasked with enforcing, but there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about the department itself.

Yeah, not seein' it. Perhaps you could be so kind as to elaborate using the text.
1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the disciplineprescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding tenMiles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[Chris]

Article I, Section 8, authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments while Article II, Section 2, authorizes the President to appoint heads of those departments. The Department of Education, like any other federal agency, is completely within the bounds of the Constitution. You can question the constitutionality of specific laws they are tasked with enforcing, but there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about the department itself.



Care to site the particular line in Article I, Section 8, that "authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments".

[Chris]

And once again, you demonstrate your inability to comprehend what others may or may not have said. Where did I ever claim that the Constitution, and not the federal departments and independent agencies which are the subject of this thread, was the solution? My response was in reply to Blackrook's suggestion that we stick to the departments that existed when this country was new. I'm simply pointing out that the organization of our government has and must change with the circumstances.


Did you or did you not post "How do we address today's challenges with 200 year old solutions?" I rest my case. The problem here is you don't stand by what you post, but shift your position willy nilly.


On your argument, we're waiting on you to demonstrate where the Constitution actually grants such power.

[countryboy]

Care to site the particular line in Article I, Section 8, that "authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments".
I believe this is a classic case of "living breathing", and being able to see whatever you want within the text of the Constitution, whether it is visible to the naked eye, or not. :rolleyes: I think you need all of your chakras aligned, and you must be at one with the document. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Ohhhhhmmmmmm.....

[Contrails]

Yeah, not seein' it. Perhaps you could be so kind as to elaborate using the text.


Care to site the particular line in Article I, Section 8, that "authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments".

That would be line 18 in the section you quoted. All federal departments, like the Department of War in 1789, were created through an act of Congress, not by the Constitution itself.

[Contrails]

Did you or did you not post "How do we address today's challenges with 200 year old solutions?" I rest my case. The problem here is you don't stand by what you post, but shift your position willy nilly.

And where in that post does it make any reference to the Constitution?

[Chris]

That would be line 18 in the section you quoted. All federal departments, like the Department of War in 1789, were created through an act of Congress, not by the Constitution itself.

Line 18 doesn't "authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments".

[countryboy]

Line 18 doesn't "authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments".
Exactly, and it speaks with specificity.
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

As I said, the modern lib will only see what it wants to see.

[Chris]

And where in that post does it make any reference to the Constitution?

It's a response to a post that does and responses to your post and yours to those all entailed the Constitution. Thus you acknowledged earlier you were speaking of the Constitution. What else could you have been referring to as "200 year old solutions"?

[Chris]

Exactly, and it speaks with specificity.

As I said, the modern lib will only see what it wants to see.



To which said lib referred to that 200 year old document as inadequate earlier. Yes, indeed, inadequate to his progressive agenda.

[countryboy]

To which said lib referred to that 200 year old document as inadequate earlier. Yes, indeed, inadequate to his progressive agenda.
Oh it's plenty adequate when they read into it anything they want to see. Then "200 year old solutions" are just peachy keen.

[Mini Me]

Sell off the post office to UPS, and FED X and any other carrier that wanted to do it!

We don't need a government run mail delivery system when private firms can do it faster and better! and without the high cost of government workers

You mean OOPS and FEDUP?

You con holers won't be happy until everyone(except your self) works for minimum wage!

After that, we wont have an economy anymore!

Actions have consequences, you know.

[Mini Me]

Reform the Department of agriculture, and move the welfare and food stamps to the commission that replaces the HHS.

Combine the FDA with the Dept of AG for food safety, and for the drug part it goes to the commission that replaces the HHS

Major job of this Department would be to keep the nations food supply and farming practices safe, and with the aid of the University system help to improve modern farming practices!

Zelmo has found his BULLY PULPIT!

Where he can be a big fish in a little pond! Just for one day, he will be famous! LMAO!

[countryboy]

You mean OOPS and FEDUP?

You con holers won't be happy until everyone(except your self) works for minimum wage!

After that, we wont have an economy anymore!

Actions have consequences, you know.


Are you insinuating UPS and FedEx employees only earn minimum wage? Have you had problems with UPS or FedEx that would cause you to disparage them so?

[Contrails]

Line 18 doesn't "authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments".
It doesn't say "Department of War" anywhere in the Constitution either. So please tell us, what specifically authorized its creation? Or are you going to tell me that our founding fathers didn't understand the document they created.

[Mini Me]

Freedom is the answer! And if all the things that you listed earlier are so important, not saying that they are not important, then the politicians, and the people should have been passing amendments to allow the government to regulate them, instead of Presidents, both republican and democrat just passing regulations with the stroke of a pen, and not even a vote by elected officials

That is what I have issues with!

Freedom.......from what?

[Peter1469]

Freedom.......from what?

If you have to ask, I doubt that any response would satisfy you.

[Contrails]

It's a response to a post that does and responses to your post and yours to those all entailed the Constitution. Thus you acknowledged earlier you were speaking of the Constitution. What else could you have been referring to as "200 year old solutions"?

Nothing in Blackroot's post or my response references either "Constitution" or "200 year old document". By "200 year old solutions" I was obviously referring to the original departments which Blackroot spelled out in his post.

[Chris]

It doesn't say "Department of War" anywhere in the Constitution either. So please tell us, what specifically authorized its creation? Or are you going to tell me that our founding fathers didn't understand the document they created.


Once again you manage to try and pass the buck. You made the claim, contrails, you back it up. How does line 18 authorize creation of departments? In so doing you must address countryboy's specificity point about how line 18 grants power to make all Laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution.

That too will answer why a war department was deemed necessary and proper.

But go ahead, now, back up your claim.

[Chris]

Nothing in Blackroot's post or my response references either "Constitution" or "200 year old document". By "200 year old solutions" I was obviously referring to the original departments which Blackroot spelled out in his post.

Forums are public discussions, not private messages. This thread is broader than just your response to blackroot.


Anyway, waiting for you to back up your earlier claim. This should be good.

[Mini Me]

Are you insinuating UPS and FedEx employees only earn minimum wage? Have you had problems with UPS or FedEx that would cause you to disparage them so?

No insinuation intended!

I was just repeating the common slang people use, they do fine as companies.
I support working people, always!

Mellow out, man!

[Mini Me]

If you have to ask, I doubt that any response would satisfy you.

We need freedom to designate something, freedom of; from; for......It needs an object, instead of being used as a noun.

"Freedom is a word that we use, mmm, without thinking, mmm." Donovan, "Colors"

[countryboy]

No insinuation intended!

I was just repeating the common slang people use, they do fine as companies.
I support working people, always!

Mellow out, man!
Good grief man, can you not answer a simple question? Are you saying UPS and FedEx only pay minimum wage?

You're telling me to mellow out? You are the one who feels the need to bold every post.

[Chris]

We need freedom to designate something, freedom of; from; for......It needs an object, instead of being used as a noun.

"Freedom is a word that we use, mmm, without thinking, mmm." Donovan, "Colors"

Shame you limit your vocabulary such that you cannot comprehend this:

Individual liberty is individual power, and as the power of a community is a mass compounded of individual powers, the nation which enjoys the most freedom must necessarily be in proportion to its numbers the most powerful nation.
~John Quincy Adams

[Contrails]

Once again you manage to try and pass the buck. You made the claim, contrails, you back it up. How does line 18 authorize creation of departments? In so doing you must address countryboy's specificity point about how line 18 grants power to make all Laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution.

That too will answer why a war department was deemed necessary and proper.

But go ahead, now, back up your claim.
You seem to be overlooking the "make all Laws" part of line 18. Like the Department of War in 1789, the Department of Education was created by Congressional law. That is the primary function of Congress under Article I, isn't it? And before you try to claim that promoting education is not "necessary and proper", maybe you should read Public Law 96-88 more carefully and understand just what it is the department does.


Forums are public discussions, not private messages. This thread is broader than just your response to blackroot.

That doesn't allow you to ignore the context. I was replying to a specific statement by Blackroot and if you can't understand the context, it's not my problem.

[countryboy]

You seem to be overlooking the "make all Laws" part of line 18. Like the Department of War in 1789, the Department of Education was created by Congressional law. That is the primary function of Congress under Article I, isn't it? And before you try to claim that promoting education is not "necessary and proper", maybe you should read Public Law 96-88 more carefully and understand just what it is the department does.

And you are purposefully overlooking the, "... which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", part of line line 18. Nice try at cherry picking, but no cigar.

[Contrails]

And you are purposefully overlooking the, "... which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", part of line line 18. Nice try at cherry picking, but no cigar.

You haven't read Public Law 96-88 either, have you?

[Chris]

You seem to be overlooking the "make all Laws" part of line 18. Like the Department of War in 1789, the Department of Education was created by Congressional law. That is the primary function of Congress under Article I, isn't it? And before you try to claim that promoting education is not "necessary and proper", maybe you should read Public Law 96-88 more carefully and understand just what it is the department does.



That doesn't allow you to ignore the context. I was replying to a specific statement by Blackroot and if you can't understand the context, it's not my problem.



Again, as per usual, you cherry pick words out of context. Line 18 doesn't merely state Congress can "make all Laws" as they please, but "make all Laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution."

IOW, they are empowered to make laws relevant to the powers granted them in line 1-17 or elsewhere in the Constitution.

A dept of war is pertinent to powers granted in Article 2 section 8.

Now tell us where Congress is granted any powers related to education.

You're the one ignoring context.

[Chris]

You haven't read Public Law 96-88 either, have you?

Uh, we're discussing whether or not Congress has the Constitutional powers you claim it does. Public law 96-88 is not the Constitution, now is it.

[iustitia]

I am happy to see the Constitution being referenced here. This was really my interest in making this topic. To see who could put their party to the side and recognize just how much of our government truly has no constitutional basis at all.

The departments of agriculture, labor, commerce, transportation, housing and urban development, health and human services, energy and education are completely unconstitutional. The only way commerce or transportation could be legal would be if commerce was for ensuring interstate commerce and upholding the commerce clause (which isn't the case) and if transportation was related to the postal roads clause (which it isn't). Energy could be constitutional if it was only for our nuclear arsenal, but it's not.

The departments of homeland security and veteran's affairs are just repetitive and should really be divided up between defense and treasury.

That would leave Defense, State, Treasury, Justice, and Interior. Though it'd be more honest to rename Defense back to War since that's what it's really about.

The EPA, ATF, DEA, et al are completely unconstitutional. Period. The Fed is disgusting but there's been debate over central banking since the Founding Fathers. Still the Constitution gives the power to COIN money to Congress. Much like the power to declare war they're delegated this responsibility elsewhere. Another thing of note is that the Air Force, Marine Corp and Coast Guard are not in Articles 1 or 2. The Marine Corp is really a naval infantry branch and is thus part of the Department of the Navy, whereas the Air Force split off from the Army entirely after WWII. It really shouldn't have its own department but it's not the biggest crime in the world. The Coast Guard was a combination of the Life Saving Service and the Revenue Cutter Service of the Treasury. So really it should be split back up between the Treasury for enforcing tariffs and trade laws, and the rest should go to the Navy as usually happens anyway in war time.

I'm pleased at the responses I've gotten and the general acceptance that many government departments and agencies have no place at least at the federal level, as well as a willingness to remove them from centralized control.

[Contrails]

Again, as per usual, you cherry pick words out of context. Line 18 doesn't merely state Congress can "make all Laws" as they please, but "make all Laws necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution."

IOW, they are empowered to make laws relevant to the powers granted them in line 1-17 or elsewhere in the Constitution.

A dept of war is pertinent to powers granted in Article 2 section 8.

Now tell us where Congress is granted any powers related to education.

You're the one ignoring context.

And Article II, Section 8, also says "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Now read Public Law 96-88 and tell us all how the Department of Education violates this clause.

[Contrails]

Uh, we're discussing whether or not Congress has the Constitutional powers you claim it does. Public law 96-88 is not the Constitution, now is it.

We're discussing federal departments and agencies which are created by laws, not the Constitution.

[zelmo1234]

While the role of the federal government hasn't changed in 200 years, its organizational structure certainly has, and all within the bounds of the Constitution.

How are regulations by the federal government constitutional?

[zelmo1234]

Article I, Section 8, authorizes Congress to pass laws establishing departments while Article II, Section 2, authorizes the President to appoint heads of those departments. The Department of Education, like any other federal agency, is completely within the bounds of the Constitution. You can question the constitutionality of specific laws they are tasked with enforcing, but there is nothing inherently unconstitutional about the department itself.

Congress did not create it? Jimmy Carter did?

Please show where the President has the Constitutional power to create a department of make Regulations the law of the land!

[zelmo1234]

Exactly, and it speaks with specificity.

As I said, the modern lib will only see what it wants to see.

Yes but he is using the liberal translations, which states in the beginning there were liberals and whatever liberals say is the truth!

[zelmo1234]

You mean OOPS and FEDUP?

You con holers won't be happy until everyone(except your self) works for minimum wage!

After that, we wont have an economy anymore!

Actions have consequences, you know.



Yep and in this case the consequences are the mail is delivered BETTER and it saves the US government a ton of money!

And FED EX and UP's don't pay anything even close to minimum wage? They are great jobs

So here are a few fun filled FACTS

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/12/06/why-the-postal-service-is-going-out-of-business/

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-does-a-ups-worker-make-on-average

[zelmo1234]

Zelmo has found his BULLY PULPIT!

Where he can be a big fish in a little pond! Just for one day, he will be famous! LMAO!

The OP asked for ideas on what you would do?

Did you have any ideas????????????

Any at all???????

NO of course not you are a liberal and want the government to control every aspect of your life?

[zelmo1234]

It doesn't say "Department of War" anywhere in the Constitution either. So please tell us, what specifically authorized its creation? Or are you going to tell me that our founding fathers didn't understand the document they created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_War

Congress Created the Dept of War? Not the President!

And that makes it constitutional

[zelmo1234]

Freedom.......from what?

The Government of course,

I understand that you feel much safer with the government controlling everything for you? Most liberals do!

But there are people that are quite happy to take care of themselves, they also have the added burden of taking care of most liberals that want the government to provide their every need

[zelmo1234]

We're discussing federal departments and agencies which are created by laws, not the Constitution.

you are correct and incorrect, for example

Educations was Created, then abolished, by congress This was constitutional

Then reborn by the Carter administration Totally Unconstitutional

[kilgram]

The Government of course,

I understand that you feel much safer with the government controlling everything for you? Most liberals do!

But there are people that are quite happy to take care of themselves, they also have the added burden of taking care of most liberals that want the government to provide their every need
I agree that freedom is good, but the capitalist idea of freedom is awful. They want the freedom to have slaves.

[Peter1469]

I agree that freedom is good, but the capitalist idea of freedom is awful. They want the freedom to have slaves.

That is the Marxist view of capitalism. It is not accurate.

[kilgram]

That is the Marxist view of capitalism. It is not accurate.
Why not? Many things of the reality are proving true the Marxist and not Marxist views. Because not only Marxists said this, also other anticapitalists like the Anarchists (they are not Marxists) said exactly the same.

And just we have to check the reality. The history. It is a simple observation.

I arrived to this conclusion before reading any Marxist or Anarchist book.

[Peter1469]

Why not? Many things of the reality are proving true the Marxist and not Marxist views. Because not only Marxists said this, also other anticapitalists like the Anarchists (they are not Marxists) said exactly the same.

And just we have to check the reality. The history. It is a simple observation.

I arrived to this conclusion before reading any Marxist or Anarchist book.

I imagine that you are saying that capitalism and crony-capitalism are the same. They aren't.

[Chris]

And Article II, Section 8, also says "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." Now read Public Law 96-88 and tell us all how the Department of Education violates this clause.



Still waiting for you to show us where education of any sort is a power granted. You obviously can't show it.

[Chris]

Yes but he is using the liberal translations, which states in the beginning there were liberals and whatever liberals say is the truth!

If truth were a rubberband, he'd've snapped it already.

[Chris]

I agree that freedom is good, but the capitalist idea of freedom is awful. They want the freedom to have slaves.



Kilgram, how many times we have to go over this? Free market capitalism is the antithesis of slavery. Only government create slavery.

[countryboy]

The OP asked for ideas on what you would do?

Did you have any ideas????????????

Any at all???????

NO of course not you are a liberal and want the government to control every aspect of your life?
Actually in truth he wants the government to control every aspect of our lives. Meaning, you and I. He only wants the government to do his bidding at our expense, not his.

[countryboy]

Still waiting for you to show us where education of any sort is a power granted. You obviously can't show it.
He cannot demonstrate that which does not exist.

[kilgram]

I imagine that you are saying that capitalism and crony-capitalism are the same. They aren't.
Capitalism for its structures lead to crony-capitalism. I don't see differences.

And pure capitalism, for the lower classes has terrible consequences that would lead the societies to pure feudal systems, but instead of nobiliary we would have the corporations leading the world.

If you want capitalism, is necessary a democratic system that stops all the harming features that capitalism has. And yes, I've said capitalism. I don't believe that anarchocapitalism would be healthy. I believe that anarchocapitalism would be the most terrible system that have existed.

[Chris]

Capitalism for its structures lead to crony-capitalism. I don't see differences.

And pure capitalism, for the lower classes has terrible consequences that would lead the societies to pure feudal systems, but instead of nobiliary we would have the corporations leading the world.

If you want capitalism, is necessary a democratic system that stops all the harming features that capitalism has.



Don't just make claims, make your case. How does "Capitalism for its structures lead to crony-capitalism"?

[Gerrard Winstanley]

Don't just make claims, make your case. How does "Capitalism for its structures lead to crony-capitalism"?
Don't confuse capitalism with private enterprise. Private enterprise is fantastic. There's nothing wrong with going out, making an admirable buck running a chain of restaurants, using the money accrued to pay your kids through college, and scrapping together an inheritance plan for when you kick the bucket.

There's something very perverse about how we've gone from that basic, romantic principle to the system we have today, where corporate lobbies operate a shadow state behind our backs, fat cats are protected from prosecution by accountability laws, and executive salaries rise by the thousand-fold on an annual basis whilst everybody else worries about their next meal.

[Chris]

Don't confuse capitalism with private enterprise. Private enterprise is fantastic. There's nothing wrong with going out, making an admirable buck running a chain of restaurants, using the money accrued to pay your kids through college, and scrapping together an inheritance plan for when you kick the bucket.

There's something very perverse about how we've gone from that basic, romantic principle to the system we have today, where corporate lobbies operate a shadow state behind our backs, fat cats are protected from prosecution by accountability laws, and executive salaries rise by the thousand-fold on an annual basis whilst everybody else worries about their next meal.



You, like kilgram, are talking about corporatism, not capitalism.

[Gerrard Winstanley]

You, like kilgram, are talking about corporatism, not capitalism.
Whichever term you use, it stinks.

[Paperback Writer]

Whichever term you use, it stinks.

I do so love libertarians until they begin their romp into fantasy land with the brownies and garden gnomes. They won't get their "no government" scenario. They won't. So all their pro-business language just aids the corporatists and makes people believe their lot is a bag of tossers.

[Chris]

Whichever term you use, it stinks.



I use free-market capitalism as opposed to state capitalism. Mix government with anything and it "stinks".

[Chris]

I do so love libertarians until they begin their romp into fantasy land with the brownies and garden gnomes. They won't get their "no government" scenario. They won't. So all their pro-business language just aids the corporatists and makes people believe their lot is a bag of tossers.

And you have a theory of government that works?

Libertarians generally are pro-free market, not pro-business.

Nice straw men there though. Anything to avoid discussion.

[iustitia]

Just to interject, not to interrupt the bickering, but really this is just a revival of mercantilism.

[Chris]

Just to interject, not to interrupt the bickering, but really this is just a revival of mercantilism.


Corporatism is similar to mercantilism, so is fascism, so is social democracy. Common denominator, the collusion of government and business.

[iustitia]

Agreed. The point though, is that capitalism is not responsible for the problems statists point at to attack the market. Rather the monopolies and social ills usually originate from labor laws, taxes, regulations, subsidies, and revolving doors for special interests to write their own legislation. Also currency/purchasing power.

[Mini Me]

Kilgram, how many times we have to go over this? Free market capitalism is the antithesis of slavery. Only government create slavery.

There is no such thing as "free market" capitalism in the USA. If so, give me an example.

Unbridled capitalism often leads to slavery. Who are you trying to BS?

[Chris]

Agreed. The point though, is that capitalism is not responsible for the problems statists point at to attack the market. Rather the monopolies and social ills usually originate from labor laws, taxes, regulations, subsidies, and revolving doors for special interests to write their own legislation. Also currency/purchasing power.



Agree.

[countryboy]

There is no such thing as "free market" capitalism in the USA. If so, give me an example.


I believe that was his point. Do try and keep up.



Unbridled capitalism often leads to slavery. Who are you trying to BS?

Examples?

[Chris]

There is no such thing as "free market" capitalism in the USA. If so, give me an example.

Unbridled capitalism often leads to slavery. Who are you trying to BS?


it's not so simple as extreme black and white. That much of the market that is not managed by the state is free.


Unbridled capitalism often leads to slavery. Who are you trying to BS?

Claim with nothing to back it up.

[Contrails]

How are regulations by the federal government constitutional?
Because they are created by laws written by Congress and signed by the President.


Congress did not create it? Jimmy Carter did?

Please show where the President has the Constitutional power to create a department of make Regulations the law of the land!

President Carter didn't write Public Law 96-88, Congress did.

[Contrails]

Yep and in this case the consequences are the mail is delivered BETTER and it saves the US government a ton of money!

And FED EX and UP's don't pay anything even close to minimum wage? They are great jobs

So here are a few fun filled FACTS

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/12/06/why-the-postal-service-is-going-out-of-business/

http://www.chacha.com/question/how-much-does-a-ups-worker-make-on-average

The Postal Service can guarantee delivery of a letter coast-to-coast overnight for only $14. FedEx and UPS charge about $30 and $25 for the same service. How is that better or saving the government any money?

[Agravan]

Because they are created by laws written by Congress and signed by the President.



President Carter didn't write Public Law 96-88, Congress did.
So, no law or regulation ever created by Congress and signed by the President has ever been unConstitutional?

[Contrails]

Still waiting for you to show us where education of any sort is a power granted. You obviously can't show it.
Didn't I just quote you where Congress is granted the power to tax and spend?

[Mr Happy]

The out-of-control growth of the federal goverrnment was made inevitable when they amended the Constitution so that Senators were chosen by the voters rather than the state legislatures. If we're going to do anything about stopping federal growth, we need to repeal that amendment.

You don't trust the people to pick the right people for the job?

[Contrails]

So, no law or regulation ever created by Congress and signed by the President has ever been unConstitutional?
When deemed so by the Supreme Court, specific laws may be unconstitutional, but the process by which they are created is totally constitutional.

[iustitia]

You keep using that word 'constitutional'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Contrails]

You keep using that word 'constitutional'. I do not think it means what you think it means.

In post #108 he asked about "regulations", the plural indicating regulations in general, not a specific regulation.

[iustitia]

I was speaking more to the general attitude that as long as a law is passed, regardless of content or purpose, it's constitutional unless some lawyers in black robes issue a 5-4 decision saying otherwise.

You're not only creating a more imperial standing for Congress and the President, but you're also essentially giving the Supreme Court - or rather five justices - the power to amend the Constitution.

[zelmo1234]

The Postal Service can guarantee delivery of a letter coast-to-coast overnight for only $14. FedEx and UPS charge about $30 and $25 for the same service. How is that better or saving the government any money?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/postal-service-loss_n_1759792.html

Not counting the savings of being able to terminate all of the postal service workers that would most likely find work with UPS and Fed EX!

The Federal government could mail 325 million overnight letters in One quarter with the savings from eliminating the postal service

this does not take into account the most likely reduction in cost as the volume increased with the private companies?

[zelmo1234]

The problem is that Regulations do not have congressional approval?

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process#regulation

Congress in some, not all cases sets up a department, and these departments then create regulations that carry the weight of laws, but these regulations do not have congressional approval!

This is Un Constitutional!

[Peter1469]

The Postal Service can guarantee delivery of a letter coast-to-coast overnight for only $14. FedEx and UPS charge about $30 and $25 for the same service. How is that better or saving the government any money?

Perhaps that has something to do with the Post Office's massive debt.

[Peter1469]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/postal-service-loss_n_1759792.html

Not counting the savings of being able to terminate all of the postal service workers that would most likely find work with UPS and Fed EX!

The Federal government could mail 325 million overnight letters in One quarter with the savings from eliminating the postal service

this does not take into account the most likely reduction in cost as the volume increased with the private companies?

How many postal workers would qualify for employment at FED EX or UPS?

[Chris]

Because they are created by laws written by Congress and signed by the President.



President Carter didn't write Public Law 96-88, Congress did.


Once again demonstrating you simply don't comprehend the Constitution. The simple fact laws are written by Congress and signed by the President does not make them constitutional. Recent example, DOMA, written by Congress, signed by the President, found unconstitutional by the Court.


Say, contrails, when are you going to show us the constitutional basis for the Dept of Education?

[iustitia]

Also, courts don't determine the constitutionality of a law. The Constitution determines constitutionality. If judges were the final say then that means segregation was constitutional (Plessy)... before it was unconstitutional (Brown).

[Chris]

Didn't I just quote you where Congress is granted the power to tax and spend?

And that was rebutted as you cherry picking words out of context.

Still waiting for you to show us where education of any sort is a power granted. You obviously can't show it.

[Chris]

Also, courts don't determine the constitutionality of a law. The Constitution determines constitutionality. If judges were the final say then that means segregation was constitutional (Plessy)... before it was unconstitutional (Brown).

Metaphorically, I suppose you could anthropomorphize the document and give it human agency to act but realistically it is the Court that interpretively applies the Constitution to enacted laws.

Agree, the Court is not the final say as in common law the law is constantly evolving.

[Contrails]

I was speaking more to the general attitude that as long as a law is passed, regardless of content or purpose, it's constitutional unless some lawyers in black robes issue a 5-4 decision saying otherwise.

You're not only creating a more imperial standing for Congress and the President, but you're also essentially giving the Supreme Court - or rather five justices - the power to amend the Constitution.

Hamilton explained in Federalist #78 that it's the duty of the federal courts to interpret and apply the Constitution. Until those lawyers in black robes rule othesn't it fundamental that a law dutifully passed by Congress and signed by the President is considered constitutional? If not, would you please explain what other process exists for determining the constitutionality of a given law? It would be more imperial to vest that authority in the executive branch.

[Contrails]

The problem is that Regulations do not have congressional approval?

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process#regulation

Congress in some, not all cases sets up a department, and these departments then create regulations that carry the weight of laws, but these regulations do not have congressional approval!

This is Un Constitutional!

When the law establishing these departments says "the Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations necessary to administer the functions and responsibilities of the department," then it is constitutional.

[Contrails]

Perhaps that has something to do with the Post Office's massive debt.

Which wouldn't exist if the weren't required by Congress to pre-fund their retirement programs unlike any other organization.

[zelmo1234]

When the law establishing these departments says "the Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations necessary to administer the functions and responsibilities of the department," then it is constitutional.

No laws are to be written by the Senate of the House and signed by the president! That is constitutional, the departments and agencies are to make rules regarding the implementation and enforcement of congressional passed laws

[Chris]

When the law establishing these departments says "the Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations necessary to administer the functions and responsibilities of the department," then it is constitutional.

Since when does the law, any law, justify itself? Simply because a law declares itself authorized does not make it constitutional. You must show its constitutionality, demonstrate it in reference to the Constitution--and not by cherry picking words out of context.

[zelmo1234]

Which wouldn't exist if the weren't required by Congress to pre-fund their retirement programs unlike any other organization.

What?

Try running a company with an under funded pension program, and see where you wind up.

No other government agencies do this all the time and it is BS! If a pension plan is not funded, you really should have no pension

[Contrails]

Also, courts don't determine the constitutionality of a law. The Constitution determines constitutionality. If judges were the final say then that means segregation was constitutional (Plessy)... before it was unconstitutional (Brown).

The Constitution isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is. That the people who wrote the document don't agree on it's finer points proves that. It is subject to interpretations which can and do change depending upon the makeup of the court. Otherwise we wouldn't be so concerned about who gets appointed to the bench.

[Peter1469]

Which wouldn't exist if the weren't required by Congress to pre-fund their retirement programs unlike any other organization.

That is not the real reason. While pre-funding the retirement programs is not necessary if the money is put into good investments, underfunding retirement programs for decade should have been a clue that the Post Office doesn't intend to pay retirement benefits forever. The Post Office will give the retirement program to the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation. They will be happy to pay the pensions at 30 cents on the dollar.

[Contrails]

No laws are to be written by the Senate of the House and signed by the president! That is constitutional, the departments and agencies are to make rules regarding the implementation and enforcement of congressional passed laws

Which is what they do, in this case and others. If you have an example of a regulation establishing new law, I would love to see it.

[countryboy]

When the law establishing these departments says "the Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and regulations necessary to administer the functions and responsibilities of the department," then it is constitutional.
By that "logic" anything is constitutional. Why have a constitution at all? :lame:

[Contrails]

What?

Try running a company with an under funded pension program, and see where you wind up.

No other government agencies do this all the time and it is BS! If a pension plan is not funded, you really should have no pension

Try fully funding retirement programs 75 years in advance and see where you wind up. And the USPS is the only agency, government or private, required to do this.

[Contrails]

By that "logic" anything is constitutional. Why have a constitution at all? :lame:

You call that logic?

[countryboy]

You call that logic?
No, hence the "" . It's liberal lala land "logic".

[Chris]

The Constitution isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is. That the people who wrote the document don't agree on it's finer points proves that. It is subject to interpretations which can and do change depending upon the makeup of the court. Otherwise we wouldn't be so concerned about who gets appointed to the bench.



And there we have it, the liberal declaration the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted willy nilly.

How then can the Constitution form any sort of foundation for our government? Thus liberals undermine the very State they depend upon.

[countryboy]

And there we have it, the liberal declaration the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted willy nilly.

How then can the Constitution form any sort of foundation for our government? Thus liberals undermine the very State they depend upon.
As if we needed any clarification.

[McCool]

I'm curious, what federal departments and independent agencies do you support abolishing? This is not a trick question.Perhaps the question should be: which federal departments and independent agencies do we support keeping? It might be easier to just do that.

[Contrails]

By that "logic" anything is constitutional. Why have a constitution at all? :lame:


And there we have it, the liberal declaration the Constitution is a living document to be interpreted willy nilly.

How then can the Constitution form any sort of foundation for our government? Thus liberals undermine the very State they depend upon.

Anyone who ever took civics would know that regulations must conform with the laws which they are enacting, just as laws themselves must confirm with the Constitution. There is nothing illogical or willy-nilly about it. And if anyone believes a particular law or regulation is unconstitutional, their only recourse is the federal court system.

[donttread]

I'm curious, what federal departments and independent agencies do you support abolishing? This is not a trick question.

We need to reinstate the Department of DEFENSE and abolish the Department of WAR and IMPERIALISM

[kilgram]

We need to reinstate the Department of DEFENSE and abolish the Department of WAR and IMPERIALISM

The Department of Defense never existed, always has been the Department of War.

[Chris]

Anyone who ever took civics would know that regulations must conform with the laws which they are enacting, just as laws themselves must confirm with the Constitution. There is nothing illogical or willy-nilly about it. And if anyone believes a particular law or regulation is unconstitutional, their only recourse is the federal court system.


Spare us the civics lesson we all know. Just point to us where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to legislate regarding education.

[midcan5]

So long as society is run by rules there will always be those who oppose these rules. Anarchy is not a workable solution so those who want to remove should consider what comes next.

"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." Theodore Roosevelt

"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

"We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized... The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of the capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages, a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty." Populist platform 1892

[nic34]

Anyone who ever took civics would know that regulations must conform with the laws which they are enacting, just as laws themselves must confirm with the Constitution. There is nothing illogical or willy-nilly about it. And if anyone believes a particular law or regulation is unconstitutional, their only recourse is the federal court system.

Now you know the reason why the conservatives are blocking/filibustering Obama's fed. court nominations.

[Chris]

So long as society is run by rules there will always be those who oppose these rules. Anarchy is not a workable solution so those who want to remove should consider what comes next.

"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it." Theodore Roosevelt

"... legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions or property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison 1785

"We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized... The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of the capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right to organize for self protection, imported pauperized labor beats down their wages, a hireling standing army, unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down, and they are rapidly degenerating into European conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few, unprecedented in the history of mankind; and the possessors of these, in turn, despise the Republic and endanger liberty." Populist platform 1892



So long as society is run by rules there will always be those who oppose these rules. Anarchy is not a workable solution so those who want to remove should consider what comes next.

The question is which rules? Society's or those of a few elite leaders like Bush or Obama? In short, natural law vs posited law, rule of law or rule of men?

By the same token you could say no theory of government is a workable solution. None last, most commit the worst atrocities.

[Chris]

Now you know the reason why the conservatives are blocking/filibustering Obama's fed. court nominations.

Naturally each partisan side wants to dominate the government. This goes without saying.

[Libhater]

I'm curious, what federal departments and independent agencies do you support abolishing? This is not a trick question.

Every single one except for our military complex as it was specifically structured and agreed upon by our Founders as written in the Constitution.

[Chris]

Every single one except for our military complex as it was specifically structured and agreed upon by our Founders as written in the Constitution.



Agree, that department is at least constitutional, but while we shouldn't abolish its defensive intent, we should cut back on its offensive expansion. We don't need to police the world.

[Contrails]

Spare us the civics lesson we all know. Just point to us where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to legislate regarding education.

I already have, you just don't seem to know what it is that the Department of Education really does.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Vice-Presidency. Next in line to the President should be his party's leader in the Senate, not some nobody chosen to balance the ticket.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Turn Congress into a set of powerless law clerks who will write bills that the people vote on in national referenda.

[The Sage of Main Street]

You are all brainwashed by authoritarians who despise their fellow Americans, which is treason. We don't have to accept their declaration that the Constitution is fundamental and supreme law. We don't have to accept these conceited power freaks' ranting that we are a republic, not a democracy.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Department of Defense never existed, always has been the Department of War.

Sometimes a good offense is the best defense. Aggression has been unfairly discredited by Draftdodgin' Dubya, a gutless, unpatriotic, and stupid cowboy who couldn't shoot straight.

[bobgnote]

By that "logic" anything is constitutional. Why have a constitution at all? :lame:

Shucks, why not just go back to being, in the British Commonwealth?

The Brits don't have a Constitution, and their corporations and monarchy set the style, for US gangsterism and for gangsterism, in the entire English-speaking world, which has lead us, to the brink, of BRICS, that is: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.

If we don't get a better constitution, with an oversight agency, right on top, with abolition or purge, for existing agencies and agents, why then!

We can just go ahead and balkanize or suckle, on QEII's immortal titties, over tea.

We do have an Idiocracy, with a Tea Party, or don't we? All this is possible . . .

[Chris]

Shucks, why not just go back to being, in the British Commonwealth?

The Brits don't have a Constitution, and their corporations and monarchy set the style, for US gangsterism and for gangsterism, in the entire English-speaking world, which has lead us, to the brink, of BRICS, that is: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.

If we don't get a better constitution, with an oversight agency, right on top, with abolition or purge, for existing agencies and agents, why then!

We can just go ahead and balkanize or suckle, on QEII's immortal titties, over tea.

We do have an Idiocracy, with a Tea Party, or don't we? All this is possible . . .



Not sure I get all that but I don't think anyone is asking to go back in time but to apply the timeless constitutional principles to today's time.

[countryboy]

Shucks, why not just go back to being, in the British Commonwealth?

The Brits don't have a Constitution, and their corporations and monarchy set the style, for US gangsterism and for gangsterism, in the entire English-speaking world, which has lead us, to the brink, of BRICS, that is: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.

If we don't get a better constitution, with an oversight agency, right on top, with abolition or purge, for existing agencies and agents, why then!

We can just go ahead and balkanize or suckle, on QEII's immortal titties, over tea.

We do have an Idiocracy, with a Tea Party, or don't we? All this is possible . . .
Speeka da englie?

[Green Arrow]

Speeka da englie?

It's legible and understandable, he just has a comma problem.

[countryboy]

It's legible and understandable, he just has a comma problem.
If you say so. Seems to me a syntax problem as well. But I don't speak libese very well.

[iustitia]

Every single one except for our military complex as it was specifically structured and agreed upon by our Founders as written in the Constitution.Considering the problems of the 20th century caused by the war industry and the military-industrial complex, wouldn't that be contrary to reason? And didn't many Founders oppose standing armies in times of peace in favor of militias?


The Vice-Presidency. Next in line to the President should be his party's leader in the Senate, not some nobody chosen to balance the ticket.I've never heard that argument made; it's an interesting one. Lord knows the First Lady, VP, and First/Second families don't deserve the power they have or the offices they unconstitutionally hold. American royalty.

[Contrails]

Lord knows the First Lady, VP, and First/Second families don't deserve the power they have or the offices they unconstitutionally hold. American royalty.
What powers do you think the First/Second Ladies/Families hold other than the power of persuasion?

[iustitia]

They shouldn't even have that. They get their own offices. The VP has no role other than succeeding the President or casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Does that warrant his own office? I don't think so. Nor do I think First Lady's should be carrying out social campaigns as if they were elected along with their husbands. It's pretentious and it also doesn't warrant its own office. The VP gets his own staff and advisers and his office employs 200 people.

[Contrails]

They shouldn't even have that. They get their own offices. The VP has no role other than succeeding the President or casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate. Does that warrant his own office? I don't think so. Nor do I think First Lady's should be carrying out social campaigns as if they were elected along with their husbands. It's pretentious and it also doesn't warrant its own office. The VP gets his own staff and advisers and his office employs 200 people.
As the second highest elected office in the country, I think an office is the least we could provide. And even with a staff of 200, that's only 5% the size of the President's office. And why shouldn't the hostess of the White House, in charge of all social and ceremonial events, use her influence to promote social change? She wouldn't be the only one in this country and it's not like we're paying her.

[iustitia]

Because it's outside the realm of the Constitution. It's not the burden of a constitutionalist to justify activism; the burden lies on those seeking to expand or justify the expansion. These may seem like nothing, but regardless of how miniscule they are they're part of the overreaching of the state. I'm also just not the biggest believer in republican motherhood. Regardless of that, I'm opposed to treating our heads of state as monarchs, aristocrats and so on. I don't even like the term head of state. The president should be subordinate to Congress, not the head of the country, and his purpose should be his. He should only delegate authority to officials of the cabinet confirmed by the Senate. I believe in a lean federalism.

[spunkloaf]

Department of Education (Indoctrination), EPA, IRS..

:rollseyes:

I'd ask why, but I'm not sure if I can handle anybody's yip-yap about the evils of government which they erroneously refer to as liberal.. Golly, I'd be more pleasant with you. I really would, I'm a pleasant dude, as I bet you are when you're not behind a computer. It's just, well, your signature man...it it so god awfully offensive in the most vividly imaginable ways. It's not your opinion that is offensive, because to be honest I don't accept it as a valid opinion. An opinion by my standards is a thoughtful expression for the purpose of better understanding. Your expression has one purpose: stirring the sh*t pot. As unproductive and obnoxious as that is, I will attest that is not what really bothers me either. That is because any dumb sh*t can sport an abusive and slanderous signature preaching stereotypes of the abusive and slanderous. What really hurt me, as it should hurt any honest intellectual, is that you are not a dumb sh*t. The talent you used to craft your words with such passionate angst for your purpose in getting a rise out of somebody like me bears evidence to that. So now that you've attracted my attention, as hopefully I got yours, I just want to know. What's with all that?

[Mister D]

There he is!

[Peter1469]

Great to see you again Spunk!

[bobgnote]

189:
Speeka da englie?

191:
It's legible and understandable, he just has a comma problem.

192:
If you say so. Seems to me a syntax problem as well. But I don't speak libese very well.

What you questionables speak is RWNJ-PIDGIN. Unfortunately, you waste a lot of bandwidth, writing, since nobody listens to you.

In English-US, we use commas, before prepositions, to offset a phrase or subordinate clause, for coherence.

We separate two main clauses, connected by a coordinating conjunction, by preceding the conjunction, with a comma.

But when we put two main clauses, together, without a coordinating conjunction, we use a semi-colon, between the main clauses.

Simple? Not simple enough, for rwnj-ranters.

Seen IDIOCRACY, boys? Mike Judge also produced BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD. I know you must have seen that.

I bet one of you thinks he's the great somebody . . .

[bobgnote]

Not sure I get all that but I don't think anyone is asking to go back in time but to apply the timeless constitutional principles to today's time.

Why, if we went back, in time, to Monticello, TJ would tell us we should hold a mandatory constitutional convention, every 19 years.

If we go back in time, to study law AND history, we can see, how activist judges became more and more corrupt, as their ranks were filled, with corrupt attorneys, who cheat discovery and continue, to profiteer.

We can also see how American media became more corrupt, by degree, while Marxism developed, with no respect, for constitutional law, given the American idiocracy and the tendencies, of American idiocrats, to worship crap, on a stick.

What "timeless constitutional principles," from any constitution, written, by slave-owners do you have in mind?

Perhaps you think your cellphone and PC work really well, on Windows Server 2000, yo.

[Chris]

Why, if we went back, in time, to Monticello, TJ would tell us we should hold a mandatory constitutional convention, every 19 years.

If we go back in time, to study law AND history, we can see, how activist judges became more and more corrupt, as their ranks were filled, with corrupt attorneys, who cheat discovery and continue, to profiteer.

We can also see how American media became more corrupt, by degree, while Marxism developed, with no respect, for constitutional law, given the American idiocracy and the tendencies, of American idiocrats, to worship crap, on a stick.

What "timeless constitutional principles," from any constitution, written, by slave-owners do you have in mind?

Perhaps you think your cellphone and PC work really well, on Windows Server 2000, yo.


OK, agree with most of that.

That all men are created equal, with rights to life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness, that government is created to serve and protect that, and if it doesn't we have the right to refresh the tree of liberty, every 20 years or so.

[iustitia]

OK, agree with most of that.

That all men are created equal, with rights to life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness, that government is created to serve and protect that, and if it doesn't we have the right to refresh the tree of liberty, every 20 years or so.

That's the Declaration of Independence.

[kilgram]

OK, agree with most of that.

That all men are created equal, with rights to life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness, that government is created to serve and protect that, and if it doesn't we have the right to refresh the tree of liberty, every 20 years or so.
I don't like this term are created equal.

But I am going to use it just for the reasoning. No, we are not created equal. Well, in theory yes, but in practice no. In this society there are people who have more rights than others. The people who are born in rich families, with a lot of pillows, and two that are inherited in these cases:

- Influence
- Money

This give them a position of superiority over the rest. It makes that no competition is equal among them and other people.

It is a fact, that two persons with similar skills but one born in a rich family and the other in a poor family, the first have much more possibilities to be prosperous, as you like to say, to be successful. So, in reality we are born in a world where the ideals of equality of opportunities(thing that I think that many people on the right have defended in these forums) is pure utopia, unreal, a pure fantasy.

And this argument, would be valid for any capitalist system (Libertarian or crony-capitalist).

[Chris]

That's the Declaration of Independence.

Indeed, the moral foundation of this nation.

[Chris]

I don't like this term are created equal.

But I am going to use it just for the reasoning. No, we are not created equal. Well, in theory yes, but in practice no. In this society there are people who have more rights than others. The people who are born in rich families, with a lot of pillows, and two that are inherited in these cases:

- Influence
- Money

This give them a position of superiority over the rest. It makes that no competition is equal among them and other people.

It is a fact, that two persons with similar skills but one born in a rich family and the other in a poor family, the first have much more possibilities to be prosperous, as you like to say, to be successful. So, in reality we are born in a world where the ideals of equality of opportunities(thing that I think that many people on the right have defended in these forums) is pure utopia, unreal, a pure fantasy.

And this argument, would be valid for any capitalist system (Libertarian or crony-capitalist).



Everything you say is true, we are each created differently, with different abilities and interests and physical features and etc.

But the intent of the words in the Declaration are that we are created equal before the law, natural law, which we are all subject to. I think the first to conceive of equality before the law were the jews who held their kings subject to the same law. Europe veered away from that for a time with the Divine Right of Kings, but Enlightened classical liberalism (libertarianism) did away with that. And then the French undermined it with eqalitarianism, the attempt to make all men equal as men, leveling society in the process.

The free-market operates by rule of law. Statism operates by rule of man.

[Mister D]

needless to say, Jefferson should have chosen his words more carefully. Or he shouldn't have expressed such a notion at all. The argument between you will never end. One side Chris feels the other is far too radical who in turn kilgram feel that equality before the law is just self-serving bourgeois crap.

[Chris]

Egalitarianism just did away with one for of statism for another. But I'd prefer the former for at least monarchs and such had skin in the game, a stake at risk, in their lands and family and kingdoms and history (paperback discusses this here and there).

[Dr. Who]

Everything you say is true, we are each created differently, with different abilities and interests and physical features and etc.

But the intent of the words in the Declaration are that we are created equal before the law, natural law, which we are all subject to. I think the first to conceive of equality before the law were the jews who held their kings subject to the same law. Europe veered away from that for a time with the Divine Right of Kings, but Enlightened classical liberalism (libertarianism) did away with that. And then the French undermined it with eqalitarianism, the attempt to make all men equal as men, leveling society in the process.

The free-market operates by rule of law. Statism operates by rule of man.

But you have said on many occasions that society should decide things not government. If Statism operates by rule of man and man is otherwise described as society, then the rule of society is necessarily Statist. You have also indicated that you do not care for posited law and that natural law should prevail. However natural law is not a rule, although considered in posited law, it is posited law which forms the rules.

[Chris]

But you have said on many occasions that society should decide things not government. If Statism operates by rule of man and man is otherwise described as society, then the rule of society is necessarily Statist. You have also indicated that you do not care for posited law and that natural law should prevail. However natural law is not a rule, although considered in posited law, it is posited law which forms the rules.


I should probably have said rule by men. Statism is central planning by a few. Rule of men is subject to corruption, as we've discussed many times.

Natural law consists of natural rules from rules like the golden or silver rule to laws of economics to rules of moral we all share like it is wrong to do harm except in self-defense.

It's not that I don't care for posited law, I care that it aligns with and is justified by natural law.

[kilgram]

Everything you say is true, we are each created differently, with different abilities and interests and physical features and etc.

But the intent of the words in the Declaration are that we are created equal before the law, natural law, which we are all subject to. I think the first to conceive of equality before the law were the jews who held their kings subject to the same law. Europe veered away from that for a time with the Divine Right of Kings, but Enlightened classical liberalism (libertarianism) did away with that. And then the French undermined it with eqalitarianism, the attempt to make all men equal as men, leveling society in the process.

The free-market operates by rule of law. Statism operates by rule of man.
Law is made by man, therefore free-market operates by rule of man.

But, what I indicated is that your equality before the law is unreal. As I stated, if I am rich and you not, I can pay better lawyers who will defend me much better and so than you. It talking inside the law, because if I am rich, I can go beyond the law more easily than you.

There is a Spanish saying that says:

- If you steal 1,000 Euros you are screwed, but if you steal 1,000 million the state is screwed. It means you will be free.

[kilgram]

I should probably have said rule by men. Statism is central planning by a few. Rule of men is subject to corruption, as we've discussed many times.

Natural law consists of natural rules from rules like the golden or silver rule to laws of economics to rules of moral we all share like it is wrong to do harm except in self-defense.

It's not that I don't care for posited law, I care that it aligns with and is justified by natural law.
I've never understood the definition of natural law. It is a concept that in political discussions in Spain never have been used, and only Americans use it.

I've seen many times this term, but for me it is an abstract idea, an unreachable idea.

[zelmo1234]

I've never understood the definition of natural law. It is a concept that in political discussions in Spain never have been used, and only Americans use it.

I've seen many times this term, but for me it is an abstract idea, an unreachable idea.

It comes from the Declaration of Independence and is one of the things that our secularist friends struggle with when the try and say the our nations was founded on secular values.

The line I believe goes something like this. We hold these Trues to be Self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by there creator with these unalienable rights, among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

So they are rights given by God that man can't take away. Hope that this helps

[Chris]

Law is made by man, therefore free-market operates by rule of man.

But, what I indicated is that your equality before the law is unreal. As I stated, if I am rich and you not, I can pay better lawyers who will defend me much better and so than you. It talking inside the law, because if I am rich, I can go beyond the law more easily than you.

There is a Spanish saying that says:

- If you steal 1,000 Euros you are screwed, but if you steal 1,000 million the state is screwed. It means you will be free.



Except the free market is not designed. If you and I and others exchange goods and services, each for what we value, that's it, we don't think, oh, we need to build the free market, it simple emerges from the countless, myriad, complex dynamic of exchange.

Adam Smith called this the Invisible Hand.


Agree, equality before the law is unreal--it is an ideal to strive for. However close we come in legislating, administering and adjudicating according to this ideal of justice, the better. Judges should not be swayed by your riches aand fancy lawyers. They should seek justice. Unfortunately, power corrupts.

[Chris]

I've never understood the definition of natural law. It is a concept that in political discussions in Spain never have been used, and only Americans use it.

I've seen many times this term, but for me it is an abstract idea, an unreachable idea.


All it is is asking based on who we are as human beings what actions are better toward achieving our potential in the pursuit of happiness.

It is not designed, but, as Thomas Aquinas said, it is discoverable by right reason, though I think, alongs lines of Hayek, it is something, like the free market, that emerges out of our interactions.

[Chris]

It comes from the Declaration of Independence and is one of the things that our secularist friends struggle with when the try and say the our nations was founded on secular values.

The line I believe goes something like this. We hold these Trues to be Self evident that all men are created equal and endowed by there creator with these unalienable rights, among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

So they are rights given by God that man can't take away. Hope that this helps


Except it's not necessary to believe natural rights come from God, they are natural, inherent in who we are. You can believe God or nature created us, as the Declaration states.


The believer in a rationally established natural law must, then, face the hostility of both camps: the one group sensing in this position an antagonism toward religion; and the other group suspecting that God and mysticism are being slipped in by the back door. To the first group, it must be said that they are reflecting an extreme Augustinian position which held that faith rather than reason was the only legitimate tool for investigating man's nature and man's proper ends. In short, in this fideist tradition, theology had completely displaced philosophy. [3] The Thomist tradition, on the contrary, was precisely the opposite: vindicating the independence of philosophy from theology and proclaiming the ability of man's reason to understand and arrive at the laws, physical and ethical, of the natural order. If belief in a systematic order of natural laws open to discovery by man's reason is per se anti-religious, then anti-religious also were St. Thomas and the later Scholastics, as well as the devout Protestant jurist Hugo Grotius. The statement that there is an order of natural law, in short, leaves open the problem of whether or not God has created that order; and the assertion of the viability of man's reason to discover the natural order leaves open the question of whether or not that reason was given to man by God. The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious

Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/one.asp)

[kilgram]

Except the free market is not designed. If you and I and others exchange goods and services, each for what we value, that's it, we don't think, oh, we need to build the free market, it simple emerges from the countless, myriad, complex dynamic of exchange.

Adam Smith called this the Invisible Hand.


Agree, equality before the law is unreal--it is an ideal to strive for. However close we come in legislating, administering and adjudicating according to this ideal of justice, the better. Judges should not be swayed by your riches aand fancy lawyers. They should seek justice. Unfortunately, power corrupts.
Do you believe in the invisible hand of Adam Smith?

I don't. I believe that people can control the markets in many ways, and more in this world where the financial market rules over the productive market and many distortions can be created in the market.

[Chris]

Do you believe in the invisible hand of Adam Smith?

I don't. I believe that people can control the markets in many ways, and more in this world where the financial market rules over the productive market and many distortions can be created in the market.


It's not something to "believe" just like evolution is not.

Yes, people can control seem to have a predilection to control others, but there are only two ways to gain this control. One by economic means, that is, producing some good or service others value. That's cooperative. And two by political means, that is, purchasing political favors to gain competitive advantage or monopoly. That is coercive.

It is out of the economic, cooperative means that the invisible hand Smith described emerges. Out of the other, Maxwell's Silver hammer down upon your head, so to sing.

[Mini Me]

I don't like "invisible hands"!

They would never allow that in a high stakes poker game.
And that's what derivitives and hedge funders do is gamble with our money.

The invisible hand of Wall Street, the Fed and corporatocracy makes most of us poorer and poorer every day!

[kilgram]

It's not something to "believe" just like evolution is not.

Yes, people can control seem to have a predilection to control others, but there are only two ways to gain this control. One by economic means, that is, producing some good or service others value. That's cooperative. And two by political means, that is, purchasing political favors to gain competitive advantage or monopoly. That is coercive.

It is out of the economic, cooperative means that the invisible hand Smith described emerges. Out of the other, Maxwell's Silver hammer down upon your head, so to sing.
But you forget that resources are not unlimited, however capitalists believe they are unlimited. They are not.

If resources are not unlimited then people can control them, overproducing or underproducing making the necessary fluctuations in the market that they believe more convenient for their interests.

I don't need any political power, just economic to do such.

[bobgnote]

203:
OK, agree with most of that.

That all men are created equal, with rights to life, liberty, property/pursuit of happiness, that government is created to serve and protect that, and if it doesn't we have the right to refresh the tree of liberty, every 20 years or so.

204:
That's the Declaration of Independence.

Equality is not protected, in the US Constitution, and it is not protected, in any practical enforcement, in the US or in the several states, without a load of costly hassles.

Even enforcement of law, as procedural rights and equal substantive rights needs guarantee, with security, but to accomplish this, a new constitution must be drawn up, to show how we need a convention.

The US Congress has long evaded an Article V Convention, since all states, but Hawaii have voted, for a convention, at various times. We need a complete, modern re-drawing, which abolishes previous three-letter agencies and establishes a CONSTITUTIONAL OVERSIGHT AGENCY.

Ethical enforcement must be prioritized, with higher morality, against killing and stealing, while corrupt crusades, against personal morality must be banned, effectively.

When the Declaration and original US Constitution are printed on hemp paper, and hemp was once required, of all colonial farmers, hemp should not be banned, by FDR and his corrupt Congress, or for Richard Nixon and his crooks, or for any geeks, who would distort how industrial hemp was their actual target, in favor of fossil media and timber.

We need to socialize welfare and ethical security, not corruption, hiding behind false morality, which evades review.

The RICO Act seems to be unenforced, against the many tribes of government and corporate pigs, which violate this, yo!

[nathanbforrest45]

Just saw a very interesting quote from Thomas Sowell "Those who want to "spread the wealth" almost invariable seek to concentrate the power". I would amend that to "always seek"