DEFINED: Small and Limited Government

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

Ultimately, the point is that the purpose of the DOI was not to make a commentary on the nature of God and humanity. It was to get the English bloody mad, and attacking the god-given right of the king to rule was the best way to do that.

No... it wasn't.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.

Now that you answered my "guess what I'm thinking" question... we can move on.

And I'll prove what I have been saying.

Quote

BTW... when Ron Paul was in school... they still studied the Two Treatises of Government.

So, yes he would be able to give me that answer in 60 seconds with the hints I gave.

Spelling

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I believe in God... so did Jefferson. The simple principle that there is some form of a creator.

Hence... Natural Law applies. Whether its a Personal God (able to intervene) or Clock Maker God. Our life comes from God.

Hence?

See, this is where you get difficult to follow. Are you just fucking with us, or do you actually believe that because you say it and Jefferson said it that it must be true?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

For God's sake (yes, that was intentional) address the idea of small g'ment (which was originally intended) vs what we have today. Isn't that closer to the OPs topic? I think he was simply denoting the difference between alienable and inalienable. The FF are the ones that threw God in there...so what?

You're late, and wrong.

The reliance of Government on God is central to the OP's entire political philosophy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[dmcoco84 4]

Yeeeeees... puzzled

Hence, seems an appropriate word.

There is a God, a creator of some kind... therefore, the concept of Natural Law applies.

There is no God, (evolution is not related to God and we somehow came from nothingness with no form of intelligent design) therefore, the concept of Natural Law is Bull Shit.

Well...

I believe in God.

Jefferson believed in God.

Hence... for this reason... we believe in Natural Law.


I didn't say I knew it to be true. I have stated the understandings that the Founders came to, and what they gave us within our Republic... and I will be getting much deeper into what they believed soon. But I have been wicked busy studying for National Registry Paramedic testing... I'm posting during my breaks. Yes, I take many breaks, because of ADD.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Yeeeeees... puzzled

Hence, seems an appropriate word.

There is a God, a creator of some kind... therefore, the concept of Natural Law applies.

There is no God, (evolution is not related to God and we somehow came from nothingness with no form of intelligent design) therefore, the concept of Natural Law is Bull Shit.

Well...

I believe in God.

Jefferson believed in God.

Hence... for this reason... we believe in Natural Law.


I didn't say I knew it to be true. I have stated the understandings that the Founders came to, and what they gave us within our Republic... and I will be getting much deeper into what they believed soon. But I have been wicked busy studying for National Registry Paramedic testing... I'm posting during my breaks. Yes, I take many breaks, because of ADD.

It is also the reason for the argument that , although there should be a separation between Church and state, the fundamental principals that this country was founded on, and should not be deviated from, was a belief in God.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

separation between Church and state,

Sigh...

A one time inference that is so incredibly misrepresented.

I will bring this up as well... totally not going there now.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Woops... yea, ya got me. I looked back at it and saw the first absolutely, accidentally.

My bad.

Quote

"Two Treatises of Government"

THANK YOU!

For fucks sake!

If you type... "what influenced the DOI"... into Google, its the first fucking result!

NIGHTINGALE for President!
Agreed!

and Wendy for VP!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

separation between Church and state,

Sigh...

A one time inference that is so incredibly misrepresented.

I will bring this up as well... totally not going there now.

Not only misrepresented but totally bastardized by the courts and liberals

I look forward to you upcoming comments on this subject


And to support you more fully, here is the title of the book the left and libs did not want to come back into print, but now it has

http://www.amazon.com/Providential-Including-Principles-Education-Government/dp/1887456007

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

It is also the reason for the argument that , although there should be a separation between Church and state, the fundamental principals that this country was founded on, and should not be deviated from, was a belief in God.

However, for those that don't believe in a creator, there's still a common ground:

1 - Believers: God gives rights to all, natural law (whatever), drives individualism, denies leadership any 'leverage' of God given authority to kings and tyrants, results in minimal federal powers, we should experiment with states governance protected by a union that supports individual rights and the ability of each to choose how they want to be governed.

2 - non-Believers: skip the theological point and go straight to the practical portion of the above - leaders are no better than the common man and we all have the same rights inherent in our nature, tyrants that consider themselves "above" all others cannot be tolerated, results in minimal federal powers, we should experiment with states governance protected by a union that supports individual rights and the ability of each to choose how they want to be governed.

As a non-believer (actually, I just don't think belief matters one way or the other except to power structures that want to exploit the faithful), I don't much care for the first part, but realize that some people need the extra boost/permission of the religious based rationalization to come to the conclusions I would come to directly.

1 - If this is a discussion over what's right or wrong, then the debate is moot as long as we agree over the end point. And, we can recognize how the last century, the concept has been devastated by leadership making the power grab. States are pretty much choked off by the feds taking more authority than they ever should have. Jefferson would be puking into his ale.

2 - If this is just a history lesson, then d'como is likely correct considering the culture back then. But I prefer N'gale's even better on the topic.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,620]

Quote

So, moving on, the Constitution certainly encourages small Federal government. The Federal government is allowed to do certain SPECIFIC things that are listed in the Constitution. If they're not listed, they're not allowed. Unfortunately, in recent years, if a dollar changes hands, they slap a label of "interstate commerce" on it and call it "commerce clause" however inaccurate that may be.

Is the Federal government regulating health care, drugs, etc? absolutely. Should they be doing so without a constitutional amendment? absolutely not.

A Libertarian view:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0417-chapman-20110417,0,2643206.column

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Fried, who made an unexpected endorsement of Obama in 2008, disagrees — and says he is the norm among his ideological kindred in the academy. "I have not met any scholars who teach constitutional law and are members of The Federalist Society who think it's unconstitutional," he told me by phone, referring to the libertarian-conservative legal group.
His case is simple: Health insurance is commerce. Congress has the power to regulate commerce. Because it has that power, it may also select the means to achieve its goals. The individual mandate is a permissible way to advance the purpose of expanding access to health care.

I don't know anything about Fried, but he doesn't sound like much of a libertarian in the article. By his logic, what can't the federal government do? If they can force the purchase of health insurance, what stops them forcing the purchase of anything else? If regulating interstate commerce and the common welfare allow feds to force purchase by otherwise idle citizens, then what is the point of the rest of the constitution and the other amendments?

-You must purchase firearms. It provides for the common defense.
-You must exercise one hour a day under the watch of local commissars. It promotes better health.
-You must purchase health insurance. It provides access to health care.
-You must have two physicals, a vision, and two dental checks each year. It provides for the common welfare.
Etc, etc, etc.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,380]

>By his logic, what can't the federal government do?

Things that are prohibited by the US Constitution.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>By his logic, what can't the federal government do?

Things that are prohibited by the US Constitution.

Per the clear intent of the framers, and the ninth and tenth amendments, that is everything not enumerated and specifically delegated to the feds. Now that we've covered that, do you disagree that by his logic, the Feds could do everything I listed?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

A Libertarian view:

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0417-chapman-20110417,0,2643206.column

Quote

His case is simple: Health insurance is commerce. Congress has the power to regulate commerce. Because it has that power, it may also select the means to achieve its goals. The individual mandate is a permissible way to advance the purpose of expanding access to health care.

"Regulate" - To maintain regularity ... To keep regular - UNDER THE LAW.

This argument make no sense if you understand the role of interstate commerce under the Articles of Confederation and the change under Federalism.

I will be going much deeper into FDR and the AOC. I will show exactly when the Federal government overstepped it's powers.