Q&A approach to opening new understanding

[SteveA]

Sounds like fun, Osborn.

Ok, here are a few questions for you.

1) Do you see yourself as a supporter of capitalism and if so, are there typical assumptions or weaknesses about capitalism that you feel should be different?

2) Do you believe it's possible for a beneficial government to exist? What form would it take and how would it safeguard against tyranny?

3) Do you see contradictions between your answers in the previous 2 questions and the Constitution? If so, what are they?

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Osborn, take off the constitution cloak and listen to what I'm saying. You sound like a devout theist with his Bible. We can change the constitution and we've done it plenty of times. Don't speak like its the ultimate authority over everything and everyone. We can change it for a reason. People, ideas, technology, all evolving, all changing.

I say:
You are right to a degree (legally). We can change the Constitution if we follow ITS oultined procedure to do so. If we don't abide its rules, why have it? It was designed as a "system" of law, and you cannot have a system of law when the lawmakers break their own rules, or hypocrisy and tyranny are evident.

We claim to uphold it, yet we have allowed the central government to pass laws encroaching EVERY single right within it, NATION wide, therfore removing any citizens chance to get away from laws they find abhorrent, unjust, unconstitutional. The system isolated itself in the New Deal, and all the changes you speak of I beleive came AFTER the New Deal, which literally abolished all the checks and balances within the Constitution.

Why would they claim to uphold something, when they violate every single limitation emplaced on them by the document? Could it be fear of being seen as "treasonous"?

There are only certain ASPECTS of the document that can be changed by amendment.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
As for born leaders and those fit to rule, are you saying you could have led the attack on the beaches of Normandy, or you could easily fill the job of the president for a week? Or maybe you could be captain of the Brazilian soccer team for a season or two. We have faults and weaknesses as humans, and we have our strengths. Leadership and learning (or will of) are strengths of humans. I know what your thinking. Maybe that I'm some knucklehead who wants ultimate power, or to give someone ultimate power, or to put complete trust into the ideal human leader. That is not true. I generally like our system of representative democracy, yet the representation portion needs fixing, not replacement.

I say:
I am not, nor have I ever, suggested replacing the Constitutionally allowed system, only the parts that the system has changed AGAINST the Constitution.

Would you agree this president, as well as all Congressmen and Senators SWEAR in to uphold, and defend the Constitution? If so, they need to be tried for treason.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
In the beginning the power was not derived by the people, it was derived by the delegates of the colonies who signed the Constitution and put it into effect. The power was then kept in place by the people, not derived from the people. The "people" can change and alter the system, but they didn't start it.

I say:
Not true, or at least, not fully true. The power was derived from the people, and yes, they can change the system if DONE by constitutional provisions. No government, state or federal or local, can change the law in violation of the Constitution. Do you disagree? If so, show me where this power is described in the Constitution, since that is what LAWMAKERS swear in their service to uphold and protect. Our representatives are our last line of defense in keeping protected from federal tyranny. They have failed on numerous occasions with no threat of accountability due to violations occuring over such an expanse of time, that the people couldn't effectively raise argument to the problems while those that changed the laws were in office. Accountability may be long gone, but the point of the matter is simple.

Either we abide by the Constituion, or we stop acting as though we abide by it and scrap it. Which is your choice?

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
I'm sad to see you find it ok for our nation to be divided amongst ourselves. You are so obsessed with rights and choices that you are blinded by their effects. Let's look to history about this sectional division among nations.

I say:
I find it hard to believe you think this argument has sound backing. I can show you that every government that has had direct authority over its citizens, has led to tyranny of all sorts, from economic to social. My case in history has been proven time and time again, yet I do not see and line of logic in the example you posted.

My examples?
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/showt...p?t=932&page=9

I have many, so if you wish to see more, just ask and I will try to explain or provide links where necessary.

You completely disregard the creation of a Federal Bank, the reason for creation of paper money, the derision of power, and where it is delegated. Those are essential to proving your points.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isherwood said:
Do you believe it should remain non-specific for the most part, or should we be making it more specific to ensure certain behaviors are beyond legalization by the States?

I say:
I beleive that any change made through the amendment process, should be valid unless the people unite and repeal the amendment as they did prohibition.
I beleive it should be left unchanged unless significant PROOF can be shown as to why it should be changed.
I also beleive it is VERY specific in the sense that it LIMITS the government, NOT the people. The rights should not be allowed to be infringed by ANY law, according to the Constitution, regardless of majority numbers. Regulation is the same as infringment IF done by FEDERAL authority, since this would be considered a DIRECT LIMITATION power, which is not Constitutional.

[Sean]

Interesting thread so far. I know you wanted me to participate Osborn, so I will try...

I am asking everyone, from ALL parties to DROP the party line, and become independent for the good of the nation.(not independent party, I mean become a non-supporter of ANY party)

I respect your idealism (this word takes on too many negative connotations lately), but I guess I do not see your proposal as being a rational option. People like divisiveness, polarization, and demagogic politics. Something like ninety-percent of the populace knew exactly who they were voting for in 2004, even before the primaries, simply based on party id.

This is the age of politics-made-easy. There are two parties, who have primary regulations, media frontloading, and all other sorts of protections from third parties, and the people like this. There is a right and left. They are no longer the confusing ideological cluster-coalitions they once were.

Also, I think I am different from you in terms of interpreting the constitution. I see the constitution as a puzzle that we elect representatives to try to figure out. If we disapprove of their results we get new people. I do not see the constitution as something we can treat “strictly”.

I think I also disagree with your push for less federal authority and more people-power. It seems to me the only thing "people power" has brought us is a corporate-controlled nightmare. It seems we have a choice of somewhat-controlling the elites via elections or letting them roam free. Our personal freedoms being enhanced via smaller federal government seems unlikely with the current power of actors within the global economy.

I should also note that I often change my mind about things. I am a flip-flopper. I have said it in a thread that asked me why I do not debate. My mind is constantly questioning itself. I am unsure about nearly everything

[Osborn F Enready]

Steve A asked:
(Steves questions in italics, my answers in regular type)

1) Do you see yourself as a supporter of capitalism and if so, are there typical assumptions or weaknesses about capitalism that you feel should be different?

Yes, I am a staunch supporter of the capitalist FREE MARKET system. The laws pertaining to corporations as well as the free market concept have been changed, for the worse, and most people don't understand how dramatically this effects the Constitutionally designed system of economics.
It has the effect of encouraging, instead of discouraging corruption and fraud, and those openings that allowed this to happen were three major things.... The removal of the ability of citizens to disband corporations should they fail to serve the publics needs, The removal of the Constitutional limitation imposed upon the government FORBIDDING direct taxation, The creation of the Federal Bank which violated every shred of the limitations imposed by the Constitution on capitalism.

2) Do you believe it's possible for a beneficial government to exist? What form would it take and how would it safeguard against tyranny?

It would be almost identical to 1790 America with its Constitutional system, with some changes, such as a more clearly defined citizen oversight system defined by Constitutional Amendment, the abolishment of slavery, full voting rights for all people deemed to be adults, and in posession of their rights. This was the system that fueled the Industrial Revolution in America, and if they would have had full voting rights, and no slavery, the nation of the times would have grown twice as fast in my belief. I would also think an amendment specifying the purpose, intent, and limits of local, state and federal government. I also remove all term limits, and propose a maximum term limit of 6 years, and a minimum of 2. I would also propose an amendment to clearly outline that the oath of office is the highest oath a person could take, with recognition of government, and that its burden is so great, any person violating this oath would be held to the strictest penalties that fit the crime of violation.

3) Do you see contradictions between your answers in the previous 2 questions and the Constitution? If so, what are they?

Yes, but only one area, and that is in what may be deemed as protectionist in the sense of putting safeguards against large monopolies, which lead to corporatism under the capitalist system. Under a truly free market system, with a Constitutional system as we had at that time, monopolistic abuse would be the biggest threat, or weakness in the system.(other than the situation of currency, which would have to be addressed logically. I beleive the gold standard, or a standard based on a combination of commodities is the best system I have yet seen to keep inflation in check, assuming of course there is a way of addressing our current debt we accrued under this illegal, corrupt, unconstitutional federal reserve system created by business moguls like J.P. Morgan.)

[Osborn F Enready]

First off, Thank you for participating Sean. I am literally shocked to see you here, and I am glad you decided to join in.

Sean said:
I respect your idealism (this word takes on too many negative connotations lately), but I guess I do not see your proposal as being a rational option. People like divisiveness, polarization, and demagogic politics. Something like ninety-percent of the populace knew exactly who they were voting for in 2004, even before the primaries, simply based on party id.

I say:
While I don't disagree that the current group of voters, of all ages, knew who they were voting for and also that they partake, and enjoy in some cases demagogic politics, I disagree that this is of their own doing. Most of it is learned reponses from "our" experiences in our life. All people alive today, limited by age, have no concept of revolution since none have existed in this nation since the civil war. Those who lived before us, much more clearly understood the threat of tyranny, the encroachment of power on liberty, and the true importance of being as free as possible to live life as you see fit. They more clearly saw the threat of authoritarianism, and its many veils of disguise. Reading about war, is nothing like being in a war, in the battle. Ask any person who has ever served in a war, and they will 90 to 1 agree. The same is true of education and understanding of the world we live in, and the governments we live under.

You have to remember that the media age has occurred within a lifespan, and we are seeing all the ill effects of misuse of that media compacted into a short period of time thanks to technology. The removal of liberty could have never happened this fast in an age of media limited to the written word, and that is THE most critical point of my statement.

Sean said:
This is the age of politics-made-easy. There are two parties, who have primary regulations, media frontloading, and all other sorts of protections from third parties, and the people like this. There is a right and left. They are no longer the confusing ideological cluster-coalitions they once were.

I say:
While that is the way the surface of the big picture looks, can you say it was arrived at honestly by the people finding their own "rut" through exploration of ideology, or being led to it by selective coverage by a corporate manipulated media, since about the end of World War II. The point must be made that since World War II and the creation of the New Deal, we have had non-stop wars of some degree going on all over the world, and this influences the tactics of the media on all levels. Media propaganda in the times of WWII DEFNITELY affected the perception of the government in the people. This was noticed. Propaganda has since been used to some degree in every level of commercialism, and media since. The FCC has consistently let down the people, since technically, the people OWN the airwaves, and have ultimate say. Most just aren't aware, because skeptical thought is not taught at the lower levels of education prior grade 12, thanks to public education, much less any in depth education about how and why the government exists, operates and derives its powers. All the things you mention can be changed by law, and done constitutionally.

Sean said:
Also, I think I am different from you in terms of interpreting the constitution. I see the constitution as a puzzle that we elect representatives to try to figure out. If we disapprove of their results we get new people. I do not see the constitution as something we can treat “strictly”.

I say:
I would have to ask how you got that interpretation, and I am not being sarcastic. Where do you derive this line of thinking, and what gives you a sense of being right in this interpretation? The Constitution was written in plain English so all could understand it very simply. There are rights, that we deem sacred, and those rights are the only essential things you need to understand to fully understand the reach of the law. That makes laws creation relatively simple, since you don't OUTLAW everything, you simply draw a common sense line as to where the limits are, and then investigate the case specifically, the job of the court. Remember, Thomas Paine named his call for revolution "Common Sense" for a reason. That reason is because all people can see the good in having the choice to live as you see fit with a bare minimum of limitations, and those limitations being the rights of others.

Sean said:
I think I also disagree with your push for less federal authority and more people-power. It seems to me the only thing "people power" has brought us is a corporate-controlled nightmare. It seems we have a choice of somewhat-controlling the elites via elections or letting them roam free. Our personal freedoms being enhanced via smaller federal government seems unlikely with the current power of actors within the global economy.

I say:
I disagree with how it happened, but I agree with what is here and now as you state. All the things that allowed these problems to occur, are clearly written in previous laws past. Corporatism can be directly linked to the removal of the peoples power, to actually "remove" the incorporated status of consortiums(?) we allowed to incorporate in the first place. They allowed corporation when there was a public call for it, and the good of the people could be shown in the use of the corporation. In these times, we have corporations that have become a burden, because they can't sustain in a business enviroment of their own accord(some due to infringement on the free market by protectionism) we are being asked as taxpayers, to BAIL THEM OUT, so they can CONTINUE to fail.
That is not how capitalism was designed, or intended to be used.

Sean said:
I should also note that I often change my mind about things. I am a flip-flopper. I have said it in a thread that asked me why I do not debate. My mind is constantly questioning itself. I am unsure about nearly everything

I say:
There is nothing wrong with flip-flopping if it is change based on new information that clears the picture of truth. But to do it as politicians of late do it, is shameful, shows lack of backbone, and is downright dishonest and in most cases for personal benefit.

I picture you as someone who does it based on what he knows, as opposed to for personal gain. That is not so bad, if it is done with the intent of finding truth, or as close as possible that can be achieved based on the facts.

[Sonart]

I respect your idealism (this word takes on too many negative connotations lately), but I guess I do not see your proposal as being a rational option. People like divisiveness, polarization, and demagogic politics. Something like ninety-percent of the populace knew exactly who they were voting for in 2004, even before the primaries, simply based on party id.

I understand what you're saying Sean, and I won't disagree that there are many who do like polarization and demogoguery. There's dittoheads on both sides of the aisle.

But I think Osborn's right in recognizing that there are some posters on Volconvo who are genuinely thoughtful in their debates and respectful of well considered opposing opinions. What Osborn also needs to know is that some of us take partisan positions for very legitimate and heartfelt reasons. For example: I am a true-blue Clinton DLC Democrat. Before the '92 elections, the last politician I'd gotten genuinely excited about was Jon Anderson in 1980. A centrist independent. When I began watching the Democratic primary debates leading up to New Hampshire in '91, I didn't know Bill Clinton from a hole in the ground, but after 3 debates I was absolutely dumbstruck at not only how well thought out his positions seemed to be but how closely they matched my own thoughts... at least in those areas I'd given thought.

So yes, I'm a statist. I believe there's a reason why we abandoned the Articles of Confederacy for a democratic republic, and why Lincoln decided that a national identity was more important than the individual states. It was an evolution of an expanding nation. That nation of 30 million people in 1865 is now a nation of 290 million people living in a society that is complex beyond anything our founders could have imagined. Our constitution MUST evolve because we face issues and conflicts never even conceived of in the wildest imaginings of 200 years ago. And without a strong national identity, and a corresponding strong nation government, we may as well simply divide the nation up into 4 or 5 smaller nations from which people can pick and choose what national identity they want... Bible Belt Conservatives, Southern White Conservatives, North Eastern Labor Liberals, West Coast Socially liberal Pragmatists, etc., etc.

I should also note that I often change my mind about things. I am a flip-flopper.

Nothing wrong there. As John Maynard Keynes said, "When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?"

.

[zynner]

You go, Osborn!

I'd like to add something to this thread. It's Osborn's, and I'll butt out if people want me to. But since I tend to agree with Osborn on the general gist of what he's saying here, I'd like to point out where I find flaws in the opposition's hidden premises. Those can be debated or not; I'd just like to point out a few things that are assumed and should maybe be re-examined by those on the other side. This might (or might not) add some flavor.

I wish we could give all the power to the people, so long as the decisions that they make are for the interests of the masses...

Presumption that "the masses" are somehow the moral goal.

Instead, individual liberty (rights) should be the moral goal, because anything else kills liberty.

What fundamental principle could claim that anything "the masses" want is good?

...as the United States of America, the most prominent super power the world has ever seen. This is a huge task.

Not long ago, the USSR was also a superpower. Since they have left the "superpower stage," is the world really worse off without them butting their noses in everybody else's business?

Why would anyone presume there must be a superpower at all? And if one or more countries simple are superpowers, why should they butt their noses into other people's business? Does the schoolyard bully have to threaten to beat everyone up if they don't pay up some lunch money? Would the schoolyard be unable to operate without the bully's actions? Same principle when you think about it. It's just people. Superpowers are just people with more potent weapons.

What fundamental principle claims that there must be any superpowers messing with the non-superpowers of the world?

We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances.

So, you're saying that the people of Kentucky should not have the right to their own enfranchisement if they are outnumbered by people in other states who disagree? In that case, what claim can you make that people in other countries should not have the right to outvote people in the USA to determine American laws?

What fundamental principle are you working with here?

With more power to the Muslims in New Jersey, why would you want to live in New York, where say more Catholics live and are being treated better?

Why should members of one religion or another be treated better or worse? Are you advocating a theocracy?

The principle involved here is that people must be free to practice any religion they choose or the one with the power will be able to force their religion on everyone else. Want religious freedom? Then you must make sure that nobody can force their ideas on you.

This was stated very simply with: "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion..." Although that was at the federal level, the same principle applies.

What fundamental principle are you advocating that would violate this concept at the state or any other level?

Religious strife and the inability to remove the complete differences and practices among the states brought Spain into complete civil war.

Why did you choose that particular example? Because it tends to validate your view? Are you talking about a monarchy that devolved into multiple monarchies? Where is the decentralization of government that Osborn is defending?

Why not choose 19th and 20th century Switzerland? There's a country that modeled it's decentralized government after our own -- with the difference that they actually kept it and we did not. In Switzerland, you have a country right in the middle of one of the bloodiest parts of the world. They were able to avoid two world wars and became among the most propserous and free people in the world, yet have almost no natural resources, no harbor (important prior to jet travel), and are such a small population that they could be easily invaded. They are a somewhat divided people, speaking several different languages (German, French, Italian), are right next door to the Pope (Catholic influence), Hitler, Moussalini, and have prospered like no other people over the past 100 plus years.

There's an example of a very successful decentralized government -- modeled after our own.

Let's use that example, instead. ;-)

People like divisiveness, polarization, and demagogic politics. Something like ninety-percent of the populace knew exactly who they were voting for in 2004, even before the primaries, simply based on party id.

I would like to remind you that just over 100 million people voted out of a total population of nearly 300 million. Around half of those eligible did not bother to vote at all.

You can hardly claim they like the current political situation. They don't even want to participate. In addition, virtually every poll shows that people do not like negative campaigns. Yes, they seem to work, but people don't like 'em.

What fundamental principle claims that dividing people among any groups -- political or otherwise -- is a valuable thing to do? If political parties do this (and they do), why should anybody support them? Isn't division what most people want to avoid?

There are two parties...

This is neither a constitutional requirement nor a decision by the people (most of whom do not vote, let alone participate). Rather, this two-party system is due to the two main parties passing laws making it very difficult for anyone else to participate. It is really a one-party monopoly with two wings who change hats depending on which way the political winds blow.

What fundamental principle justifies a non-constitutional power grab by two political parties?

There is a right and left.

I challenge you to identify a solid half-dozen party stances of the Reps and Dems today and then show that they did NOT change over the past 100 years ago (show that the Reps do not today claim to support what the Dems did back then and vice versa).

I bet you cannot do it, which goes to show that there is no set principles that either party follows. That means, in turn, that they are not really ideologies. Rather, they are political whores for power. Maybe that's why so many people are turned off.

What fundamental principle identifies what the right or the left stand for?

I see the constitution as a puzzle that we elect representatives to try to figure out.

In that case, the Constitution doesn't mean anything. Should we hold elections every 4 years? Why? I say there is no absolute requirement. Can you prove me wrong?

What fundamental principle can claim that a law says something other than what it actually says? (Does the 65 MPH speed limit really mean 146?)

It seems to me the only thing "people power" has brought us is a corporate-controlled nightmare.

Did the corporate control exist before or after the goverement got powerful enough to hand out favors to corporations?

What fundamental principle says that government should be in the business of handing out favors to corporations -- and how can a government with limited powers possibly do such a thing?

Bottom line: I think Osborn deals first in principles and then draws conclusions about political ideas. I think most people do not.

~ zynner

[Jack]

As John Maynard Keynes said, "When my information changes, I change my opinion.

Absolutely. To believe in absolute truth is to close the possibility of any further inquiry.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said:
What Osborn also needs to know is that some of us take partisan positions for very legitimate and heartfelt reasons. For example: I am a true-blue Clinton DLC Democrat. Before the '92 elections, the last politician I'd gotten genuinely excited about was Jon Anderson in 1980. A centrist independent. When I began watching the Democratic primary debates leading up to New Hampshire in '91, I didn't know Bill Clinton from a hole in the ground, but after 3 debates I was absolutely dumbstruck at not only how well thought out his positions seemed to be but how closely they matched my own thoughts... at least in those areas I'd given thought.

I say:
I too agree with a lot of what Clinton said, but I don't think his actions in all areas lived up to what his promises on "intent" were. He did a lot that was bad, one of the worst was an executive order 13107 giving the soverignity of the U.S. to the U.N. in times of extreme crisis, such as what would be incurred by a legitimate armed revolt by the people. This is not sound in any manner, nor is it in ANY way Constitutional. Also, notice the debates he was in. Limited debate between a couple parties. No full debates, with all parties. Even if YOU don't deem the other parties as valid, they have legitmate angles on many things, that can bring out flaws in the major parties stances, and this is CRUCIAL in our system.

Sonart said:
So yes, I'm a statist. I believe there's a reason why we abandoned the Articles of Confederacy for a democratic republic, and why Lincoln decided that a national identity was more important than the individual states. It was an evolution of an expanding nation. That nation of 30 million people in 1865 is now a nation of 290 million people living in a society that is complex beyond anything our founders could have imagined. Our constitution MUST evolve because we face issues and conflicts never even conceived of in the wildest imaginings of 200 years ago. And without a strong national identity, and a corresponding strong nation government, we may as well simply divide the nation up into 4 or 5 smaller nations from which people can pick and choose what national identity they want... Bible Belt Conservatives, Southern White Conservatives, North Eastern Labor Liberals, West Coast Socially liberal Pragmatists, etc., etc.

I say:
While I understand your fears of fragmentation, one has to wonder at what cost should we draw the line of unification? How many liberties, ideals, religions etc, will be outlawed before we draw that line?

I personally, view the Constitution as the limiting factor. The problem is, it has long been legislated into near oblivion. There is now no basis for most of the laws we have, since every level of the Constitution has been changed by civil law, as opposed to Common Law, which is what the Constitution DEMANDS must be done, in order to remain "Constitutional". Regardless of where the line is, do you agree or disagree that there are civil laws that exist that remove or impose regulation directly from the federal government to the citizens? If you do, then there is a clear definitive line of where we must address problems. Most laws are created out of need. If there is a need for a law, there are many ways to approach the problem, and the problem must be analyzed to see if it is a problem caused by other laws, or is it a legitmate problem based on rights. If it is another law, maybe we should question the necessity and functionality of the law that creates the problem. Regardless of which though, all problems can be addressed constitutionally, and there is no legitimate need to violate it.

[bishop]

I want to debate law, rights and Constitutional issues, not philosophy issues, at least in THIS thread.

the thing about any set of laws is that they're always subject to rhetorical arguments. and the thing about the constitution was that it was not soley influenced by philosophical ideals - it was heavily influenced by public opinion. certain bits of language were either omitted or watered down because certain states would have opposed it.

these two pieces - the timeless use of rhetoric plus the fact that the constitution itself was subjected to public opinion - are solid reasons why perceptions of the document's language have evolved (or devolved depending on your pov) over the years.

the legislature makes certain decisions based on public interest. those decisions could be supported by the majority of the public, or by a small handful of elite interests.. nevertheless, the legislature's primary concern has always been to represent their constituents (of course, money pollutes this - but does not eliminate it).. and depending on the issue, the public may hold their own interests higher than certain stipulations/limitations stated in the constitution. many americans want universal healthcare, for example - even though the constitution makes no mention of healthcare being a function of the federal government (i wonder if its writers would've even thought of it in their omission).

when the legislature pushes something through that has strong support, the supreme court has repeatedly taken public sentiment into account. MANY rulings have taken public opinion into consideration in fact. (this is in line with the fact that the constitution itself factored in public opinion.)

and the most important point - technically, nothing is unconstitional unless the supreme court rules as such. this is spelled out clearly in the constitution and this truth really can't be refuted. if you're looking for a purely legal answer, that's it. people who oppose certain pieces of legislation use the timeless art of rhetoric to argue their case, but the decision lies with the supreme court.

i certainly support many policies/laws that do conflict with the constitution's verbage.. it just so happens, though, that all of these policies (to the best of my knowledge) have not been ruled as being unconstitutional - therefore they ARE constitutional. in some other cases, such as fiat, the court has ruled in favor of fiat.

and just one more point on public opinion (which is a huge factor in all policy decisions and supreme court rulings)... peoples' mentalities can change over time. it can be argued that forcing the public to live with a rigidly perceived constitution, which would prohibit all sorts of federal initiatives, would limit their freedom. there are instances where the best decisions are not necessarily constitutional. a shining example of that was the louisianna purchase. it can be easily argued that the purchase wasn't constitutional, but since it was such an incredibly good bargain, nobody was about to push the issue in the courts.

[zynner]

So yes, I'm a statist. I believe there's a reason why we abandoned the Articles of Confederacy for a democratic republic, and why Lincoln decided that a national identity was more important than the individual states.

Did Lincoln have the legal authority to single-handedly change the Constitution?

If yes, can you cite that authority?

If no, can you state a principle that allows anyone to do such a thing?

Our constitution MUST evolve because we face issues and conflicts never even conceived of in the wildest imaginings of 200 years ago.

When it is time for the Constitution to evolve, by what process should it?

Why was the 18th Amendment passed (banning alcohol)? Why did they bother passing a constitutional amendment? Why not just have Congress pass a law? Why not just have the president declare it so?

What principle was involved in passing that amendment?

What principle can you cite that would support the idea of amending the constitution in any way other than the way specified in the document itself?

And without a strong national identity, and a corresponding strong nation government, we may as well simply divide the nation up into 4 or 5 smaller nations from which people can pick and choose what national identity they want.

Do you think the South had a right to seced in 1861?

Do you think the American colonies had a right to seced in 1776?

What principle states that a people can or cannot "disband the political ties which bind them" when they so choose?

~ zynner