Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
New Mexico Changes Creation / Evolution Policy
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] Warped: "Before the New Deal was enacted, the US was in the middle of a deep depression. FDR's New Deal may have expanded the government, but it also ended the depression in less than 8 years. It provided jobs, and improved the country at the same time. That's what the New Deal, and increasing government involvement was all about. Though I will concede that somewhere along the way, someone misplaced those thoughtful ideals, in place of lining their pockets." I think you've just found our problem. The government has to have limited economic control, in order to prevent depressions and such. I think that this is what was meant by Article I, Section VIII: "The Congress shall have the Power To... provide for the... general Welfare of the United States". My belief is that this was intended to give the Congress leeway in case they have to do something before they can pass an ammendment. It's a short-term measure only. The entire problem is that this one sentance gives completely boundless power to the national government. Congress can do whatever they want, if it promotes the general welfare. I believe that one delegate refused to sign the Constitution because of this clause. The Constitution has only one vague point, and this is it. What's to prevent Congress from blowing up New York and justifying it by saying that it was for the general welfare of the US? That clause should never have been included in the constitution. The New Deal was a good idea, but it's gone way too far. Sol: "Do you seriously believe that it was the intent of the Founding Fathers to make sure that space travel would always remain an impossibility?" What the founding fathers intended is irrelevant. It's what they SAID when they wrote the constitution that matters. The text of the constitution is all that matters, and we have to go by it, not their intentions. "The Constitution is not meant to act as a hinderance to freedom." You're right. It's a guarentee of freedom. That's why the national government can't go beyond it. "My point is, the Constitution is not meant to be a document permenently embedded in the Revolutionary era. I think it should be a constantly evolving guideline." That's what ammendments are for. I don't think that we need an ammendment for every interstate. Just one that covers transportation in general. The constitution is strict and literal, and there's very little room for interpretation. Can you come up with a clause somewhere that can in any way be interpreted to mean that you can have a space program? Jay: "...I thought it was going to come down to 'my religious dogma can beat up your scientific research any day.'" *decides not to dignify this with a response* "Which leads to a point that a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution is bollocks, and remains the fantasy of the right-wing." And why is that? I think an ammendment could easily be passed allowing the government limited economical regulatory powers, for instance. If the people knew that, without this ammendment, monopolies could control everything, then I can guarentee that they'd vote it in. With an ammendment, you wouldn't need to rely on some vague interpretation of something that isn't even there. The government would have clearly defined and contained powers, which is the way democracy is supposed to work. Anyone can place anyone else in check. One man can take a case to the supreme court and change hundreds of laws. All vagueness does is lead to a government being able to take more and more power, which of course they will. That leads to socialism. We all know what happens then. "Take the creation of the atomic bomb for example. Does the 2nd Amendment cover in terms of specific languange that I, as a memeber of a "well regulated militia" can have one in my basement? Hmm, not covered. I'll put one on my shopping list." That's a good point. It does say "well-regulated", though. I'm sure there are laws stating who gets inspected and when, and what they can have. Besides, a nuclear weapon is going to damage public and private property, no matter where it's detonated in the country. If, however, you just had one in your basement as in your example, they could probably justify constant inspection, having a guard contingent on duty at all times, even dismanteling the thing to see if there are any possible ways to detonate it by remote, then putting it back together. They could not constitutionally prevent you from having one, though. "The healthy polity of the United States rests on the balance of vague phrases and specific language of the Constitution...and the living, expanding intrepretation thereof." There's only one vague phrase that gives the government any power in the constitution, and it's the "general welfare" clause that's already been discussed. All the others are quite specific. Coddman: Should I ask? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3