What is the purpose of government?

[Observer]

You're afraid to support your conclusions?

You really ought to stop being such an asshole and start conducting yourself as if you were a sentient adult. I asked you why we are bound by the writings of the founders. That's a legitimate and appropriate question.

If your premise has merit then you can support it. Well, punk? Can you support your premise?

If you knew anything at all about our system of government, Dumb ass, you would know the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and has been for 223 years. This is not something new.

Look, Coit, I understand that you are one of those people who wants the government to be your mommy and daddy and give you whatever you want and whenever someone suggests it should be otherwise, you feel compelled to hold your breath and stomp your feet. The problem is that it doesn't impress me. So, you can take your "punk" and shove it up your ass until it hits the roof of your mouth.

In the relatively short time you have been here, you have proven yourself incapable of engaging in debate or discussion on an adult level. The only reason I respond to you at all is because somebody has to.

[Sassy]

You're afraid to support your conclusions?

You really ought to stop being such an asshole and start conducting yourself as if you were a sentient adult. I asked you why we are bound by the writings of the founders. That's a legitimate and appropriate question.

If your premise has merit then you can support it. Well, punk? Can you support your premise?

Are you people 15 years old or what?

 

[ivanm]

I would agree but why make the Constitution the target? If we can interpret and apply the principles then we can also target those who cop out and resist needed change. And what fun is it anyway to point fingers at a document?

I was being sarcastic as there is a lot of finger pointing going on here on this forum. If you screw up then blame it on something or someone else. 

[Coit]

If you have something to say in defense of your pubescent friends, why not just say it?

[Coit]

If you knew anything at all about our system of government, Dumb ass, you would know the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and has been for 222 years. This is not something new.

Look, Coit, I understand that you are one of those people who wants the government to be your mommy and daddy and give you whatever you want and whenever someone suggests it should be otherwise, you feel compelled to hold your breath and stomp your feet. The problem is that it doesn't impress me. So, you can take your "punk" and shove it up your ass until it hits the roof of your mouth.

In the relatively short time you have been here, you have proven yourself incapable of engaging in debate or discussion on an adult level. The only reason I respond to you at all is because somebody has to.

None of this even remotely resembles an actual effort to explain why the writings of the founders governs the interpretation of the Constitution.

Actually nobody has to respond to me, and your juvenile garbage does not qualify as a response.

Answer the actual question. I explained to you why the writings of the founders is not definitive and I can admit that Ivan may have explained it even better. So have some actual integrity. Stop being the punk that you are and give some real reasons, if you can.

[Coit]

I was being sarcastic as there is a lot of finger pointing going on here on this forum. If you screw up then blame it on something or someone else. 

I know. I saw your sarcasm and raised it with a facetiousness.

[ivanm]

That is completely wrong.

I am often amazed at the lack of understanding that otherwise well educated people have regarding the most important document ever written by the hand of Man.

The Framers wrote the Constitution for a very specific purpose. It was to limit the powers of government and to ensure the basic human liberties of the citizens of the newly founded United States of America. The principles set forth in that document are the complete opposite of what Ivan suggest above. For the first time in history, GOVERNMENT was being limited in scope and power in order to protect the rights of the individual.

The reason I continually stress the importance and primacy of the Constitution is really very simple. It is what protects us against government running every aspect of our lives and turning us into slaves of the State. The Constitution... the very document so many of you claim is antiquated and out of touch with the realities and needs of people today, is the one thing that preserves your very right to complain about our elected officials, to post on forums such as this, to elect this country's leadership, to practice the religion of your choice or NOT practice religion, at all. Without the Constitution, whoever is in power at any given time could pull the plug on those things we see as RIGHTS and decide you should no longer have them.

History has proven time and again, that government left unchecked, invariably becomes more and more oppressive. The Framers knew that and took measures to ever prevent it from happening here.

Unfortunately, most people in this country today have bought into the idea that they are "owed" certain things for no reason other than they exist. To them, and there are a number of them right here on this forum, the Constitution is of no value because it prevents Government from just opening the coffers and giving them all the things they think they deserve. They are too blind to realize that a government that can give you everything you want can also take from you whatever IT wants.

Unfortunately, Ivan... far too many people see the principles set forth in the Constitution as an impediment to their own self gratification. They don't WANT the Constitution obeyed.

There is a mechanism in the Constitution itself that permits change and tells us how to do it. If you want the Constitution changed, get it changed. I don't have a big problem with that. What I have problem with is people who instead of moving to change the Constitution, just decide to ignore it.

Bullshit.

Tell me what articles of the Constitution you would change if you could.

There is nothing new about that.

People have a way of getting around the constipation, so your stand in principles, as admirable as it may be, is like shouting in the wind.

Off hand I am happy with things the way they are although it may be time to amend the constitution to enable a parliamentary form of legislature. As it is we have too much power is concentrated in only two parties, and the pols of those parties tend to represent their special lobbies rather than the people at large. A parliamentary style would permit small groups to join together and break gridlock and the strangle hold that the majors have on the process.

[ivanm]

We also need an amendment or amendments to reset the term limits. No more then two four year terms for a representative of the House, no more than two four year terms for a Senator, and no more than 12 years service in the Congress.  This should help the incumbency problem.
We also need a recall provision, to be invoked every two years as needed to weed out the damned crooks in Congress, and a recall of the President, to be invoked every 2 years as needed to remove a dead headed prick who cannot hack it.

We need to somehow take our country back and show the clowns in WDC that we mean business.

[IM2]

Coit and everyone else,

The fact is that I say blacks are owed because blacks worked for free for over 200 years. It is called back pay, not being owed for just existing. History supports me, what was done was unconstitutional, by what the constitution was supposed to stand for. However slavery stood until the 1860's by constitutional protection, and the importation of slaves was constitutionally allowed until 1808. So then given these facts, it is apparent that a wrong was done and that wrong should have been redressed but it never was.

Therein lies the great contradiction of the document.

To some, the constitutionally organized government WAS oppressive. To some, the constitution only protected the rights of a certain group of indivudals. People may not have been slaves of the state, but the state allowed people to be slaves. To some, the very tyranny the document was supposed to protect its ctizens from was happening. All of this is not included in the many opinions some here have of what the constitution is supposed to do. Such as the understanding that the so called founders were, in a large majority, slaveowners. Or that the founders did not truly believe in the equality of all men. All of this must be discussed when we talk about intent, the constitution and all that. If we cannot, then we do not understand the reality things have been operating under in this country.

It is the understanding of this reality that allows me to say that trying to assess policies created for todays problems by the words of men 200 plus years ago is foolish. Because even then, the founders did not put into practice the very words they wrote on paper.

[Coit]

We need to somehow take our country back and show the clowns in WDC that we mean business.

I think you hit the nail on the head again with this one. Observer thinks that a document that can only be interpreted by his interpretation of what the founders intended will protect us from what he regards as slavery.

The reality is that the only thing that will ever protect us from anything is us and our expression of our collective power. In your words, showing them that we mean business.

[Coit]

Coit and everyone else,

The fact is that I say blacks are owed because blacks worked for free for over 200 years. It is called back pay, not being owed for just existing. History supports me, what was done was unconstitutional, by what the constitution was supposed to stand for. However slavery stood until the 1860's by constitutional protection, and the importation of slaves was constitutionally allowed until 1808. So then given these facts, it is apparent that a wrong was done and that wrong should have been redressed but it never was.

Therein lies the great contradiction of the document.

To some, the constitutionally organized government WAS oppressive. To some, the constitution only protected the rights of a certain group of indivudals. People may not have been slaves of the state, but the state allowed people to be slaves. To some, the very tyranny the document was supposed to protect its ctizens from was happening. All of this is not included in the many opinions some here have of what the constitution is supposed to do. Such as the understanding that the so called founders were, in a large majority, slaveowners. Or that the founders did not truly believe in the equality of all men. All of this must be discussed when we talk about intent, the constitution and all that. If we cannot, then we do not understand the reality things have been operating under in this country.

It is the understanding of this reality that allows me to say that trying to assess policies created for todays problems by the words of men 200 plus years ago is foolish. Because even then, the founders did not put into practice the very words they wrote on paper.

True, and that great contradiction is by no means the only one.

[IM2]

Coit,

True, and that great contradiction is by no means the only one.

I agree.

[Observer]

None of this even remotely resembles an actual effort to explain why the writings of the founders governs the interpretation of the Constitution.

Do I really need to state the obvious?

They WROTE it. Who could possibly be better qualified to tell you what the words mean than the people who WROTE them?

Answer the actual question. I explained to you why the writings of the founders is not definitive and I can admit that Ivan may have explained it even better.

Nothing of the sort was done. You can't just redefine something to make it mean what you want it to mean so you can do whatever you want. When the Framers wrote it, the words, the sentences, the clauses, the articles, all had specific meanings. The only interpretation that matters is THEIRS.

What you Leftist idiots seem to believe is that you can take those words and make them mean whatever they need to mean to further your own agendas.

Tell me something, Coitus... If you said something to someone and a third party immediately jumped in and said "What he actually means is..." and the interpretation he gave was diametrically opposed to what you intended, would you correct him, or would you just nod your head like the typical Leftist and say "Yeah, that's what I meant. I thought I meant something very different, but I was wrong"?

So have some actual integrity. Stop being the punk that you are and give some real reasons, if you can.

I have given you the only reason (there is only one), several times. Pull your head out of your ass for a second and maybe you will be able to see it.

[Observer]

We also need an amendment or amendments to reset the term limits. No more then two four year terms for a representative of the House, no more than two four year terms for a Senator, and no more than 12 years service in the Congress.  This should help the incumbency problem.

I agree with this. I would however, set the limits at 2x 3 year terms for a member of the House, 1x 6 year term for a member of the Senate and 1x 6year term for the President.

I would also return the election of Senators to the Legislatures of the various states and get rid of the popular vote for them.

[ivanm]

What you Leftist idiots seem to believe is that you can take those words and make them mean whatever they need to mean to further your own agendas.

I think both sides of the aisle do an equally good job of that.  So who is the hypocrite in this issue?  It sure as hell isn't the liberals.