I think i'm onto something here

I agree to some extent.. There needs to be money available to the federal government for the maintenance of our transportation infrastructure as it is essential fo national trade and security.

My view if decentralization would have the affect of nullifying the special interest groups that have so much authority over our laws and tax money. I feel this would lead to less big business and foreign trade, having the effect of increasing the number on jobs here in America and stimulating the economy. The increased local tax revenue (which would predominantly go to local government) would likely be sufficient to care for the local infrastructures needs as well as the maintenance of the national transportation that facilitate trade beyond their community..

Mind you I am not trying to be the one in charge of anything here.. I don't want to have any special power or authority, just sharing a perspective here guys...

I realize sharing radical views leave me susceptible to reticule (and I enjoy the debate) but lets stop with the attacks on character and/or intellect.

I'm no more a right-wing extremist than a left-wing one.. I am here to share thoughts and ideas, provoke thought and be enticed into researching new and different perspectives myself ..

 

Keep in mind what the requirements were to become a lawyer back then..

Perhaps I am taking issue with the concept of someone telling me that I am simply not intelligent enough to appreciate the idealism or intent that this country was founded on..
That I should just shut up and accept the fallout of those superior few individuals that are in charge. My ignorant feeble mind would be better served to rally behind the propaganda of the special interest groups that support these higher beings..

 

I think we are capable of assessing (determining) our situation (condition) as well as appreciate the changes we are expected to accept (conditioning). The question is at what point do you stop and say "Wow we have strayed a long way" and resolve to get back on the path before getting lost?

I have personal ideals that many would see as being non-conducive to big industry as well.. I don't like that a machine can be deployed to do the job of many men without compensating the economy for their lack of employment.. Where I see these perspectives as being far too controversial and inflammatory I usually just don't voice them.

The incentive is getting back to community based life/living where you know the people you rely on and they know/rely on you.. Where you can make a proposal at your town hall about your local laws and it can be voted on and put into act without federal government interference..

 

When did anyone insult your intelligence?

 

There is no invasion of anyone's privacy. These men wrote an enormous number of letters to each other, and articles, while they were drafting these documents. These are now part of the public domain as they and their ancestors have made them part of the national archives.

These papers demonstrate the disagreement among them and the compromises that were made. It is my contention that the vagueness of the Constitution reflects this disagreement, but the one issue on which most, if not all, agreed was to draft a document that could grow and change with the nation as it grew and changed. And this is how it has evolved throughout our history. The last 17 amendments reflect our growth and our realization of the need for change.

Not at all. I'm just trying to make the point that we, as individuals, do not have the right to impose our personal interpretation of law, that is the duty of the Supreme Court.

And in the end, the Supreme Court has the final say.

The slaves would have disagreed with you, Women who wanted to vote would have disagreed with you, etc and etc. Vagueness works both ways.

Yes I am, I don't like it, and I certainly don't like everything my government does, but I'm only one of 310m people and I cannot impose my personal beliefs on everyone else; that's why we vote and take issues to the Supreme Court.

According to your own words, "I'm not arguing any kind self serving agenda here. I have it pretty good, and I am grateful for it (more than you will ever know)," everything is working just fine. Why trash over 2 centuries of progress if it's working?

.

.

 

Its implied with the statements like:

"These people talk about Founding Fathers they know little to nothing about and a constitution many of them can barely read, let alone apply it to today's culture"

".Admit it..... You haven't read these documents to any degree of understanding have you?"

"The dip-shits will now be wanting to go back to that, especially down here where the word confederacy, or any form of it, is Divine."

"Actually the constitution wasn't written to be a common man's document, it's a legal document, written by people who both then and now were often lawyers."

These all have different implications to some extent however however the effect is simply to state that anything short of a scholar (or at least someone far more intelligent than myself) is incapable of appreciating the intention or ideals of this country during its inception.

Mind you that bit was aimed at the larger government, career politicians, and political lawyers as a whole.. Anyone that leaves the impression that the average man is incapable of actively participating in government on every level (to preserve their individual power, wealth and authority)

The numerous references to slavery woman's rights and/or any other repression has been irrelevant as it has no reliance in the scope of the arguments I have presented and amount to nothing more than spin in an attempt to make me appear as some sort of right wing extremists in the hops that they would appear more favorable by default..

 

My argument in regards to all the repression (of blacks and woman) you guys keep bringing up is that it was never at any point constitutional.. It has always been unconstitutional to repress woman and blacks.. its just took a while for it to sink in...This in fact proves my point more than it detracts from it... If we flowed the Bill of Rights explisitly these things would have never happened....

If I start slipping in the words "child molester" or "pedophile" every time i reference one of your statements (or ideas) would it bolster my perspective? No... throwing in "slavery" and "woman's rights" does nothing for your arguments against my perspective either....

 

Sorry, but I just couldn't let this go by.

Your whole argument, as I understand it, is that the last 17 amendments were not needed because they spelled out rights that were already guaranteed by the original documents. How does "unnecessary" evolve into "Wow we have strayed a long way"

Dude, controversy is what these political forums is all about. Besides, I would likely agree with you on that one.

That exists everywhere in this country now, unless those local laws you make conflict with Constitutional Law. And this is the central issue with the Tea Party; they want the right to make their own local laws based on their personal interpretations of the Constitution. There can only be one interpretation or there will be chaos.

.

 

Insult was not implied, it was inferred.

.

 

The unnecessary bits (in conjunction with a centralized government, special interests, and an international economy) are what have led us astray..

I love these debates but find it challenging to keep up with you guys (good job by the way) As a result though i am going to have to keep it to one argument at a time at least until i get use to this place..

With a centralized government and international economy I think we have really gotten away from the localized community.. I feel alot of the problems we have are a product of just not knowing or feeling you need your neighbor.. It also scares me that i depend on people (that I may never meet) for my basic needs and governing..
We are set to up fail over things like foreign economy's and fossil fuels because there is no big money for politicians or corporations in a localized economies... where communities are self sufficient and sustainable..

 

At either rate its little more than inflammatory (at least in part) and serves no positive contribution to the discussion..

 

This is the duality of the right. While they rail against liberals for emphasizing a more centralized governance, they are also not participating in their local governments. They may vote, but when it comes to city council and county commission meetings, it's not exactly standing room only.

Walk next door and introduce yourself. When it gets down to it, this is one of the major problems with our culture and our political system, we don't know each other, which breeds fear.

Get to know them by collecting facts and biographies written by non-partisans.

Sounds like a good argument for centralized government.

.

 

Perhaps that's why i don't consider myself left or right wing...
Its hard to hop into bed with anyone that has an agenda outside equal rights and freedoms for everyone.. (as afforded by the bill of rights)..

Perhaps one of the greatest arguments i can pose about the centralization of the federal government is that it puts too much power in the hands of too few making it far too easy for special interests to have an affect over a large population..

California's legalization or medical marijuana is a good example..
It was a special interest that lead to the federal prohibition on marijuana in the first place.
As obsolete and outdated that law is (the cultivation of marijuana this day in age wont have an adverse affect on any other major industry) The federal government still funnels millions of tax dollars into "the war on drugs" not only in arias have adopted the "look the other way policy" for marijuana (if that wasn't bad enough) but has gone as far as to impose in places there essentially legalized it.. A more localized government would at very least save the rest of the country the tax money that is wasted on there unconstitutional witch hunts..

 

Alright, the original question asked has still yet to be answered, what freedoms are being taken away.

 

The federal government sponsored war on drugs in decriminalized states..
Muslims not being allowed to build new mosques. (wherever Christian churches can be built)
Mormons being persecuted for polygamy..
Gay marriage.being outlawed..
The Patriot act.

Anything that you are not allowed to do that does not infringe on anyone else's rights (as outlined in the Bill of rights).. unless voted into law democratically by your local community and subject to immediate repeal with the change of local consensuses..

 

The problem is most of those things were voted on, it's judges that strike down the laws. There's nothing in the law/zoning books about where mosques can be built, that's the public. Polygamy would never stand up to a vote but there's a legitmate reason in terms of tax, death and citizenship benefits to why people can't marry 10 people at once, more people would do it to abuse the system them out of actual love. Gay marriage bans have been near all public referendums. Drug war and patriot act I'll agree with.

 

concerning the original post, I found the wording hard to follow so maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying, but...

(and correct me if i'm wrong) is it not guaranteed in the Constitution that individual States have a right to secede from the nation if they cease to agree with the concensus of the nation?

Is that what you were getting at? The right of small forms of government to declare soverienty and form their own country?

Yeah, that was guaranteed in the Constitution. But ol' Abe Lincoln pretty much guaranteed that constitutional right would never be exercised again.

 

There is no right what so ever to withdraw from the union in the constitution. Considering the Articles of Confederation declared a "perpetual union", and the constitution was an effort to strengthen federal power, it would further go to the point there's no right for a state to secede. If a state was going to break away it makes sense it'd have to be done the same way a state enters, with consent of that state's population along with the federal congress.

 

Richard Nixon (R) circa 1971. Formed the DEA. Previous to this drug laws were primarily a local and state issue.

They have the rights and were were given the permits by government, but the Republican TeaBaggers are trying to take away their rights.

This is actually a "one size fits all law" and everyone is prosecuted for bigamy if they marry more than one person at the same time. I think you might be surprised that more non-Mormons are prosecuted under this law because the Mormons are smart enough to formally marry only one person. There are no laws against who else lives with you or who else you screw.

Nothing is lost or being lost here, Gays have never had the right to marry because conservative Christians have always had their religious tenets ingrained in law.

written and enacted by a Republican Congress and President.

So, you believe it is OK for local communities to take away rights if there is a local consensus?

Cities, towns and counties have the right to make their own laws, so long as they are not in violation of state and federal laws and do not infringe on Constitutional rights. I really don't know where TeaBaggers get this crap from, but local government is alive and well and functioning to the extent of citizen involvement, which usually isn't very much. I've been to County Commission meetings where the local radio reporter and I were the only people in front of the Commissioners. The TeaBaggers were all at home making their anti big government signs while their local government is running amok.

.

 

I'm not a "teaBagger" and not familiar with their propaganda.. However if their argument is similar to mine I would speculate that the principal concept is simply to place the power and money closer to the hands of the many (we, the people) than squarely in the hands of the few (far away where they can conspire together in the company of special interests away from the people they affect).

The only special interests that should exist are that of the local community not a large corporation... When laws are passed to accommodate special interests they should she be passed locally not on a national (or even state) level..

What it boils down to is if someone is going to be bought off to accommodate any agenda it should be the people that agenda is going to affect, not a fat career politician seated safely away from the fallout of their treachery..

Federal law should only consist of the Bill of rights... States and communities should make the remainder as long as they don't conflict with federal law..

Though I don't agree with it, yes.. if a community agrees as a vast majority to ban gay marriage or impose marijuana laws that is where and how it should take place..