Fun with the US constitution

from JoeUser Forums

In the beginning...

There were 13 colonies, each considered themselves a sovereign independent state (what we would call a nation today). Virginia and New York, for instance, considered themselves as sovereign as England and France.

The peace treaty between Great Britain and the United States was between Britain and the 13 specifically named independent states.

As a means to largely defend themselves from powerful colonial powers as well as to discourage warring between themselves (Virginia, for instance, claimed the territory today used by Michigan, Ohio and numerous other future states), they created what was effectively a neighborhood association.

They first tried out the Articles of Confederation but it proved to be too weak. Many veterans of the Revolutionary war remembered darkly the starving men in their ranks because congress was too weak to get them the food and resources they needed.

To this end, we got the constitution. Originally, it had no bill of rights. Its authors didn't consider it necessary because this new federal government didn't have the power to do anything other than what was expressly mentioned in the constitution. They feared that even having a bill of rights might imply to future politicians that the federal government had the power to enact laws that could somehow violate such a bill of rights.

In compromise, the bill of rights included the 10th amendment that made clear that the federal government did not have any powers that weren't expressly given to it in the constitution. All power would rest with the individual states and the people of those states.

The problem was the Supreme Court. Being a federal institution appointed by the federal President, the Supreme Court would constantly find new powers given to the constitution.  The states responded with the 11th amendment which as designed to slap down the Supreme Court in making clear that the states were the supreme authority, not the federal government.

...

Time Passes...

Of course, today, the federal government has managed to get all kinds of power. The federal government provides a retirement plan to citizens of the states, it has a minimum wage law (where did that power come from -- states have that power, the federal government does not but still does it).

So how did that happen? The answer is the supreme court.  The founding fathers were brilliant in most respects but could have used some experience in game theory.

The federal government is made up of 3 branches:

  1. The executive which was picked by the states via the electoral college.
  2. The legislature which is picked by the citizens of the states (now anyway).
  3. And then... the judicial branch which isn't picked by the states but instead by the federal executive and conformed by the federal legislature branch.  Oops.

Not surprisingly, the federal government is naturally biased in favor of power being with it rather than the states. As time passes, more and more power gets concentrated into the federal government from the states. There is no question of if this will continue to happen but only the progression of it.

What the founding fathers should have had is the judiciary be appointed/elected/whatever by the states instead of the federal government.

13,487 views 33 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top

there are so many rights in this i dont even know where to start...but all i can say is that im sure the founding fathers are rolling in their graves

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

but all i can say is that im sure the founding fathers are rolling in their graves

End of quote

What better way is there to honour a revolutionary than refusing to move even an inch from his positions.

 

 

Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

What the founding fathers should have had is the judiciary be appointed/elected/whatever by the states instead of the federal government.
End of quote

Hindsight is 20/20.  I agree, now we have to see if we can change the stupid thing.  The Feds have used lame excuses to sieze the power, and I do not think they are going to voluntarily reliquish it either.  The American century is over, and it was not the barbarians at the gate that did them in, but the internal "good intentions" of idiots.

Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top

Quoting Dr, reply 3

What the founding fathers should have had is the judiciary be appointed/elected/whatever by the states instead of the federal government.
Hindsight is 20/20.  I agree, now we have to see if we can change the stupid thing.  The Feds have used lame excuses to sieze the power, and I do not think they are going to voluntarily reliquish it either.  The American century is over, and it was not the barbarians at the gate that did them in, but the internal "good intentions" of idiots.
End of Dr's quote

 

Thats usually what happens... good intentions untill the politicans stick thier fingures into it and mess it up

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 2



but all i can say is that im sure the founding fathers are rolling in their graves

What better way is there to honour a revolutionary than refusing to move even an inch from his positions.

End of Leauki's quote

The founders provided a way for people to move inches or miles from their position. The amendment process of the constitution is very straight forward.

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Makes me wonder why people complains about the Patriot Act. The act pails in comparison to what the Gov't has done for the past few decades and people do little if any complaining about it. Of course who complains when you flash money and power in their faces (minimum wages, food stamps, welfare, free medical assistance)

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

The problem was the Supreme Court. Being a federal institution appointed by the federal President, the Supreme Court would constantly find new powers given to the constitution.  The states responded with the 11th amendment which as designed to slap down the Supreme Court in making clear that the states were the supreme authority, not the federal government.
End of quote

My ignorance of US history is showing - I never knew that. I always figured the founding fathers wanted to (eventually) centralise and slowly limit the role of the state legislatures - why else would they have a tripartite federal structure? (Congress could have served as a supreme court, neatly making supreme court cases much rarer due to legislative laziness).

What the founding fathers should have had is the judiciary be appointed/elected/whatever by the states instead of the federal government.
End of quote

That would work too. Make it a rolling court comprising the chief justices of each state legislature, as decided by availability/fairness. The only problem there would be that you'd get lots of conservative cases launched in the southeast, and lots of liberal ones in the west and northeast, which would naturally attract sympathetic justices. The next step would be to have each decision appealable to the full court - the bureaucratic grinding would make constitutional amendments look like a walk in the park.

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

Hey Draginol,....this is off subject but what the heck is Little Whip's problem with the world?

Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top

My ignorance of US history is showing - I never knew that. I always figured the founding fathers wanted to (eventually) centralise and slowly limit the role of the state legislatures - why else would they have a tripartite federal structure? (Congress could have served as a supreme court, neatly making supreme court cases much rarer due to legislative laziness).
End of quote

This is really what the civil war was about.  Sure slavery was an issue but the major reason that the civil war started was because the southern states wanted to preserve states rights and the northern states wanted to increase the strength of the federal government.  The North won and so we got a stronger Federal government and states rights continue to be eaten away.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Good article.

I disagree with your conclusion.

I think the Founding Fathers got all three branches right because they designed it under the strongest form possible...a Constitutional Republic form of government.   They set up the Constution so that "We the people" tell the government what powers we are "delegating" to them. That means all radical changes, like freedom of speech, would have to be made by the people through the difficult process of amendment.   

Time Passes...

Of course, today, the federal government has managed to get all kinds of power. The federal government provides a retirement plan to citizens of the states, it has a minimum wage law (where did that power come from -- states have that power, the federal government does not but still does it).

So how did that happen?
End of quote

The Constitution was written for a moral society based upon Judeo-Christian mores and ethics holding sway. However, for decades now,  society has preferred secular, amoral values and we stopped teaching true history, civics and patriotism.

Even though the Federalists papers have it that the Constitution would be "unalterable by the government", numbskulls claim the Constitution is a "living document" and can be changed at the whim of the president, congress or judiciary own pleasure.

Since the whole idea of the original Framers has been stood on its head and its purpose all but defeated, we should be asking Why do we stand for this?

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is really what the civil war was about. Sure slavery was an issue but the major reason that the civil war started was because the southern states wanted to preserve states rights and the northern states wanted to increase the strength of the federal government.
End of quote

History - and the words of LIncoln - show this to be true.  But the victor writes history so to cover their usurping of power, they claimed it was about slavery.  Funny, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free any slaves in the USA.  But that is often ignored and hidden.

Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top

The states responded with the 11th amendment which as designed to slap down the Supreme Court in making clear that the states were the supreme authority, not the federal government.

That's an interesting perspective. Wikipedia is totally lacking any examination of the politics behind the decision.

What I know from political science supports this perspective -- the Supreme Court doesn't strike down whatever it pleases with judicial review.  It supports the federal government against the states (overturning about eight times as many state laws as federal), and it strikes down laws when the federal government pressures it to.  Sometimes the leaders of the government "pass" a law to satisfy their coalition, and then make sure the Supreme Court will strike it down!

Like you say, the Supreme Court has no political power base other than the federal government.  No wonder it doesn't dare be "activist" in a way that would make the federal government unhappy.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Constitution was written for a moral society based upon Judeo-Christian mores and ethics holding sway. However, for decades now,  society has preferred secular, amoral values and we stopped teaching true history, civics and patriotism.

End of quote

That's nonsense, Lula.

The constitution was specifically written to create a secular state, which is why it specifically prohibits the establishment of a religion, Judeao-Christian or otherwise.

Plus you still haven't answered my question of many months ago: what are the Christian values that are not also Islamic or secular values?

(Incidentally, what you call "Judaeo-Christian" is really "pagan-Christian". I know your value system. There is nothing "Judaeo" in it.)

 

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

Plus you still haven't answered my question of many months ago: what are the Christian values that are not also Islamic or secular values?
End of quote

Love thy enemies is one.

 

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Love thy enemies is one.

End of quote

I remember a story (one of the Hadith perhaps) about Muhammed where he was regularly insulted by a woman in Mecca until one morning, when she wasn't on the street and didn't insult him. He inquired if she was ill.

The Quran also teaches forgiveness and peace. (Whether Muslims follow the principle of nor is another matter.)

And historically it has been secular states who showed the most mercy to their enemies, not particularly Christian states.

Any other Christian values that you think are not Islamic or secular values as well?

 

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

Love thy enemies is one.

I remember a story (one of the Hadith perhaps) about Muhammed where he was regularly insulted by a woman in Mecca until one morning, when she wasn't on the street and didn't insult him. He inquired if she was ill.

The Quran also teaches forgiveness and peace. (Whether Muslims follow the principle of nor is another matter.)

And historically it has been secular states who showed the most mercy to their enemies, not particularly Christian states.

Any other Christian values that you think are not Islamic or secular values as well?

End of quote

Leauki, your reply came up woefully short.  I'll say it again...."Love thy enemies" ....love, love, love...is one key Christian value and command.

Be honest! Mohammad never taught his followers to love their enemies and as far as I can tell neither the word "love" nor the concept and practice of love of God, neighbor and enemies is found in the Qur'an. Consequently, Islam knows nothing of loving their enemies.

Same deal with Secularism...love of enemies is not a Secular value.

 Leauki, since this discussion is getting too far off topic of the original article, we should agree to take it elsewhere.  

 

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

Leauki, your reply came up woefully short.  I'll say it again...."Love thy enemies" ....love, love, love...is one key Christian value and command.

End of quote

I didn't need a long reply to inform you that both Islam and humanist value systems also share that value.

 

Be honest! Mohammad never taught his followers to love their enemies and as far as I can tell neither the word "love" nor the concept and practice of love of God, neighbor and enemies is found in the Qur'an. Consequently, Islam knows nothing of loving their enemies.

End of quote

"It may be that Allah will grant love between you and those whom ye hold as enemies. For Allah has power; And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."(Sura 60, Verse 7)

Be honest! You keep talking about what the Quran says but you have never ever read it and all your sources are rubbish written by liars. Isn't that the truth?

 

Same deal with Secularism...love of enemies is not a Secular value.

End of quote

So how come all those godless pacificists profess it in such an exagerated way that they will happily forget their own country and allies in doing so?

 

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Constitution was written for a moral society based upon Judeo-Christian mores and ethics holding sway. However, for decades now, society has preferred secular, amoral values and we stopped teaching true history, civics and patriotism.
End of quote

That's nonsense, Lula.
End of quote

If you've read the Founding Father's writings, you can't slough it off as nonsense.

Something tells me the Founding Fathers knew the history of the rise and fall of preceding civilizations. They wanted the Republic of America and the governing Constition behind it to last. Our God-given unalienable right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness spoken about in the Declaration of Independence are foundational to our constitional government and proof of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The origin of our law is based upon the unchanging moral or natural law as written on the heart of every one of us by the one Creator ALmighty God.  

 

   

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Be honest! Mohammad never taught his followers to love their enemies and as far as I can tell neither the word "love" nor the concept and practice of love of God, neighbor and enemies is found in the Qur'an. Consequently, Islam knows nothing of loving their enemies.

"It may be that Allah will grant love between you and those whom ye hold as enemies. For Allah has power; And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."(Sura 60, Verse 7)

Be honest! You keep talking about what the Quran says but you have never ever read it and all your sources are rubbish written by liars. Isn't that the truth?
End of quote

Like I said Mohammed never taught his followers to love their enemies.

My copy of the Qur'an was translated from the Arabic by J.M. Rodwell, was first published in 1909, and then reissued in 1992 and again in 1994 by Phoenix, a division of the Orion Publishing Group, LTd. London, England. Take it up with them if you think they have written rubbish and lies.  

You give Sura 60:7 as proof of your ridiculous claim that Mohammed and Islam through the Qur'an teach Muslims to love their enemies.  My copy has it as "God will perhaps, establish good will between yourselves and those of whom ye take to be your enemies. God is Powerful: and God is Gracious, Merciful! 

Have you read Sura 60 in its entire context? The first opening Suras blow your argument to smithereens. 

"O ye who believe, take not my foe and your foe for friends, shewing them kindness, although they believe not that truth which has come to you: they drive forth the Apostles and yourselves becasue ye believe in God your Lord. If ye go forth to fight on my way, and from a desire to please me, and show them kindness in private, I well know what ye conceal, and what ye discover! Whosoever does this hath already gone astray from the even way."

The verses following this are no help....Only doth God forbid you to make friends of those who, on account of your religion, have warred against you....."

 

Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top

Our God-given unalienable right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness spoken about in the Declaration of Independence are foundational to our constitional government and proof of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The origin of our law is based upon the unchanging moral or natural law as written on the heart of every one of us by the one Creator ALmighty God.
End of quote

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you here.  Remember that a number of the founding fathers were NOT Christian or Jewish, they were diests at most and at least one was an Athiest.  There is mention of a "creator" in the Declaration but no mention or allusion to God anywhere else in either the Declaration or the Constitution.  The notion of a "Creator" can be applied to just about any religion out there as just about every religion has some sort of story about how we were all "created" so to claim that this implies a Judeo-Christian heritage is just plain wrong.  Also to imply that we are a Judeo-Christian nation would violate the first amendment.  That first amendment makes this country 100% secular as far as government is concerned.  Whether all the laws of the land follow that or not is a whole separate issue entirely.

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

You give Sura 60:7 as proof of your ridiculous claim that Mohammed and Islam through the Qur'an teach Muslims to love their enemies.  My copy has it as "God will perhaps, establish good will between yourselves and those of whom ye take to be your enemies. God is Powerful: and God is Gracious, Merciful!

End of quote

I gave it as proof for my "ridiculous" claim that Islam does indeed have such a value and that the Quran does mention it.

Which translation is the most faithful to the original I cannot say.

If I find the time, I might look into it; but I honestly find reading classical Arabic exceedingly difficult, given that I do not speak Arabic, know few words, and have to look up both most of the words and the exact grammar for almost every sentence.

I wrote a program that transliterates Arabic letters into Hebrew letters which makes at least reading it easier.

 

 

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Even if taking your translation, I don't see how it is explicitely saying 'love your enemies' - to me it's simply saying 'God may decide that you should love a particular enemy (with the implicit assumption that if he doesn't explicitely decide this, you should continue to hate/attack/whatever the context suggests to your enemy which is likely to be the opposite of love.

 

As to the original issue, there is a very hard balance to strike between localised government and national government - some things benefit from national government running them, others from local government. For example you probably wouldn't want to localise defence (the army), but you might want to localise other areas of spending+decision making.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Leauki, reply 13



That's nonsense, Lula.
The constitution was specifically written to create a secular state, which is why it specifically prohibits the establishment of a religion, Judeao-Christian or otherwise.
End of Leauki's quote

How is it nonsense when the only other religion represented was either humanism or satanism depending apon what Ben Franklin really believed in?  How would the laws not be based apon Christian values then?

 


(Incidentally, what you call "Judaeo-Christian" is really "pagan-Christian". I know your value system. There is nothing "Judaeo" in it.)
End of quote

I dectect much pain in this statement. Maybe it clouds your judgement. Many others of your faith do use Judaeo-Christian when they talk about your share values. Does the ten commandments not count?

Now had you said Christian values are Judaeo-Pagan that would make sense.  Its hard to force people into a religion without them trying in someway to keep part of the old one.

But even just being around another religon makes some things bleed through.  How many jewish men have more then one wife nowadays? I'd wager that the practice of taking more then one wife faded during the pagan roman era. Though even if it was later it would still be a pagan tradition that your culture took on.

 

 

 

Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top

How is it nonsense when the only other religion represented was either humanism or satanism depending apon what Ben Franklin really believed in? How would the laws not be based apon Christian values then?
End of quote

A number of the founding fathers were more Diests than they were Christian or they believed that religion was a very private matter that belonged in their private lives rather than in government.  And Ben Franklin was an Athiest.

Not to mention that just because a person happens to subscribe to one religion over another doesn't mean that the laws they are in favor of must come from that religions values.  You do NOT need religion to have values or morals, you can acquire those morals/values from various sources like your upbringing, your education, your own critical thinking, etc.

 

Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting EL-DUDERINO, reply 24


  And Ben Franklin was an Athiest.

End of EL-DUDERINO's quote

Ben Franklin most likely (imo) was a Humanist but it is close to athiest so I can understand your statement.

However Ben Franklin was also a Hellfire.  While many people think this group did it for "comical" reasons, there are many others who believe they could have been serious.  Heck pagans during those days said they "kid" too.