Q&A approach to opening new understanding

[Osborn F Enready]

I would like to propose an idea to all debaters in this forum who regularly disagree with me on Constitutional and Rights issues. This is as much for me, as it is for everyone else to participate. I want to suggest that in THIS thread, people who normally have issues with my positions, ask me specific questions about specific issues, and let me try to address them to the best of my ability.

I do not desire to start a flame fest, or a shouting match. I want to debate law, rights and Constitutional issues, not philosophy issues, at least in THIS thread.

The reason I am doing this is because I have people who claim to be self professed liberals, and conservatives, accuse me of being from one of those sides because of the way I frame my debates, or reply to others debates.

I am doing this to try to close some of the divide here, between myself and those who do not understand my position fully, yet label me as they see fit.

I welcome all questions from all people, but mainly I direct this thread to those that often find themselves saying "that damn Osborn and his (liberal/conservative) stance."

I am neither Republican or Democrat, nor do I think that should make a difference in how we vote. Parties, and party spirit are one of the evils of free nations, since they become divisive tools to be used to further divide the nation, for other purposes which are usually to some groups advantage over anothers.

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)

Please, regardless of if you like me or not, like my philosophy or not, like my ideology or not, LEVEL the guns at me and let loose the barrage. We need to clear the air, and address the real problem, which is that we are ALL being used for political purposes, and most of us don't even know to what extent.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and hopefully to respond.

Peace

[Osborn F Enready]

For those who would like to know a little about my position before posting, here is a link to my thread about the Unconstitutional USA that we have today.
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/thread932.html

[SoccerfreakAB2]

For those who would like to know a little about my position before posting, here is a link to my thread about the Unconstitutional USA that we have today.
http://www.volconvo.com/forums/thread932.html

Osborn, I would love to have a little Q and A with you, however, philosophy and law go hand in hand. I will not debate pure politics with you. Those debates go nowhere because there is no philosophical foundation to set one's opinions onto. Once you realize your bias and know what your going to think on issues, then what you think our priorities as a nation should be, debate goes much smoother.

[Osborn F Enready]

I am open for discussion. Lets rock. I will try to keep this as civil and professional as possible, in the hopes that ALL who post do the same.

I too would love to have this discussion, so please post small parts at a time(no lists of 30 questions at once please, I enjoy the challenge but I am not asking for my own personal hell here!)

I welcome ANYONES comments, or questions, or debate.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I am open for discussion. Lets rock. I will try to keep this as civil and professional as possible, in the hopes that ALL who post do the same.

I too would love to have this discussion, so please post small parts at a time(no lists of 30 questions at once please, I enjoy the challenge but I am not asking for my own personal hell here!)

I welcome ANYONES comments, or questions, or debate.

I would like to know the following answers:

What religion are you?
What government is best for our nation?
Do you agree with everything the constitution says, generally speaking?
Do you agree that the constitution is vague and can be interpreted by representative leaders of our government?
Do you agree that the constitution needs to be amended to support the wishes of the majority of the United States citizens?
Do you believe in a more federal government or a more state level/local level government and why?

Sorry for the questions this just gives me some background to work my other questions off of. Thanks.

*feel free to be general with me, we can go into specifics later.

[Osborn F Enready]

What religion are you?

Answer: None. I was raised protestant, but since being legal age, have had no affiliation with religion other than exploratory research. I have read about many, agreed with few, sign on to none.

What government is best for our nation?

Answer: The one we have, under the Constitution of the United States, with minor exceptions on amendments that I feel need to be repealed, one of which, the most crucial, the 16th amendment.

Do you agree with everything the constitution says, generally speaking?

Answer: Yes, for the most part. The areas I disagree with are absolutely minimal, but they are the areas of slavery and suffrage mainly.

Do you agree that the constitution is vague and can be interpreted by representative leaders of our government?

Answer: It is vague in some areas, mainly the area in the Bill of Rights, where they enumerate the rights of the people, and specifically mention that not all rights are enumerated. I am sure our elected leaders can interpret it, as it is written in common english, therfore anyone with a decent command of the english language should be able to read and understand it wholly and completely, with exception to word definitions that have changed since the period it was written.

Do you agree that the constitution needs to be amended to support the wishes of the majority of the United States citizens?

Answer: Yes and No. It is a document that specifies within it how, and what procedure should be used to amend it, so yes, it can and if need be, SHOULD be amended. However, the Constitution clearly limits the central government(federal) and not the citizens, and it also clearly defines that NO rights are amendable. The Bill of Rights contains enumerations of the rights that are NOT to be encroached under any means, reasoning, or majority.

Do you believe in a more federal government or a more state level/local level government and why?

Answer: I believe exactly as the Constitution states, should be followed, unless corrected under valid amendment proceedings. That would mean I believe in a strongly limited Central government, with very strong state governments. The thing to note, is that all state and local governments MUST adhere to the Constitution, and the limits within it, on power of the state, or local government.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

In your opinion, what are the general negatives of a strong central government, contrasted to the positives of a strong state/local government?




By the way, I'll be asking you lots of questions, as I enjoy learning and love asking questions. So this is good stuff.

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
In your opinion, what are the general negatives of a strong central government, contrasted to the positives of a strong state/local government?

I say:
I side squarely and completely on the side of the forefathers here.

The difference is purely the ease with which corruption can be entrenched. In a strong local government (state, local) the people have the ability to PERSONALLY monitor government actions, operations, and intents, since all government is local and observable, as well as easier to find sympathetic citizens to combat new and oppressive policy, proclamations, or laws.

A strong Central Government, isolates itself from the citizens, by distance as well as accessability. The government has total control over all local governments, rendering them useless in effect. This leads to many citizens complaints falling on deaf ears, if for no other reason, because it hears SO MANY from all corners, and can't possibly respond to local level disputes with reasonable amount of time, sincerity, or fairness.

Our system was designed as a Limited Central Government, Strong State Government for a reason. To keep the growth of corruption in the face of the locals, removing the ability of isolation from local problems and intrests by a Strong Centralized System of Government.

This is one reason we rebelled against England. The King could not satiate the desires of the American Colonies, because they were in all aspects having different needs, desires, and local problems with which the King in England had no knowledge, or care for that matter, to resolve. As long as the people paid taxes, the King was happy. The people SERVED the King, as opposed to the government serving the people, who created it.

Local governments are accessible to locals. Central government is accessible to representatives.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
By the way, I'll be asking you lots of questions, as I enjoy learning and love asking questions. So this is good stuff.

I say:
Great, this is what I was hoping for. We can all learn more if we approach this MINUS the partisan aspect. Please, feel unrestrained and free to ask anything you like, or refute or dispute at your leisure. (but of course, expect to be challenged.)

[SoccerfreakAB2]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
In your opinion, what are the general negatives of a strong central government, contrasted to the positives of a strong state/local government?

I say:
I side squarely and completely on the side of the forefathers here.

The difference is purely the ease with which corruption can be entrenched. In a strong local government (state, local) the people have the ability to PERSONALLY monitor government actions, operations, and intents, since all government is local and observable, as well as easier to find sympathetic citizens to combat new and oppressive policy, proclamations, or laws.

A strong Central Government, isolates itself from the citizens, by distance as well as accessability. The government has total control over all local governments, rendering them useless in effect. This leads to many citizens complaints falling on deaf ears, if for no other reason, because it hears SO MANY from all corners, and can't possibly respond to local level disputes with reasonable amount of time, sincerity, or fairness.

Our system was designed as a Limited Central Government, Strong State Government for a reason. To keep the growth of corruption in the face of the locals, removing the ability of isolation from local problems and intrests by a Strong Centralized System of Government.

This is one reason we rebelled against England. The King could not satiate the desires of the American Colonies, because they were in all aspects having different needs, desires, and local problems with which the King in England had no knowledge, or care for that matter, to resolve. As long as the people paid taxes, the King was happy. The people SERVED the King, as opposed to the government serving the people, who created it.

Local governments are accessible to locals. Central government is accessible to representatives.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
By the way, I'll be asking you lots of questions, as I enjoy learning and love asking questions. So this is good stuff.

I say:
Great, this is what I was hoping for. We can all learn more if we approach this MINUS the partisan aspect. Please, feel unrestrained and free to ask anything you like, or refute or dispute at your leisure. (but of course, expect to be challenged.)

Here is where natural reason comes into play. I wish you were right. I wish we could give more power to the states and local governments. Hell 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. Many people are not fit for government.

Government is the ruling, leading body of the nation, as the United States of America, the most prominent super power the world has ever seen. This is a huge task. A task that needs to be cared for by those who are natural leaders and by those who are educated in all areas of government, humanity, history, and justice, so that the decisions made by these rulers can benefit those he or she represents. The above description is quite idealistic, and I do believe that our focus is wronfully placed more on money and reputation than on the outlined characteristics of an educated leader. On this specific topic, adjustment is needed, not complete change.

We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society. The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification.

I'll throw in an example. Say New Jersey has a large amount of Muslims as their leaders and main population. With a central government, they have little religious authority over law making. With more power to the states, they can give more power to the Muslim religion, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I'm just speaking hypothetically. 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? Now you have a growing population of Muslims in NJ and more and more Catholics in NY. This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION. Bottom line to my second and final point for right now.

[Osborn F Enready]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Here is where natural reason comes into play. I wish you were right. I wish we could give more power to the states and local governments. Hell 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. Many people are not fit for government.

Government is the ruling, leading body of the nation, as the United States of America, the most prominent super power the world has ever seen. This is a huge task. A task that needs to be cared for by those who are natural leaders and by those who are educated in all areas of government, humanity, history, and justice, so that the decisions made by these rulers can benefit those he or she represents. The above description is quite idealistic, and I do believe that our focus is wronfully placed more on money and reputation than on the outlined characteristics of an educated leader. On this specific topic, adjustment is needed, not complete change.

We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society.

I say:
All of the above, I completely disagree with. You speak of "born" leaders, and speak of "some" people not being fit to rule. This goes against every grain of our Constitution, and it speaks of the evils of exactly what the forefathers feared of nobility.

It is impossible to have those beliefs, yet believe in equality for all under the eyes of the law. Therefore, how could you justify such a belief?

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification.

I say:
I agree, but not at the expense of constitutional limitations. All power is GRANTED by the people to the government, therfore the government must clearly show where it derived such power. There is no derivation of power as you speak. If you know of it, and I missed it, I implore you to point it out.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society. The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification.

I say:
That is personal opinion, and I would like to see where the Central or Federal government derives that power in accordance to the Constitution they claim to uphold.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION. Bottom line to my second and final point for right now.

I say:
It causes division between states, as rightly should be allowed under constitutional law. I fail to see where the central government derives the power to make decisions that are clearly in control of the people, or the state. Division and strife are not bad if it provides ALTERNATIVES, which is what the states system was to embody. To be forced to live WITHOUT alternative, embodies NO meaning of the word liberty, or justice.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
Here is where natural reason comes into play. I wish you were right. I wish we could give more power to the states and local governments. Hell 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. Many people are not fit for government.

Government is the ruling, leading body of the nation, as the United States of America, the most prominent super power the world has ever seen. This is a huge task. A task that needs to be cared for by those who are natural leaders and by those who are educated in all areas of government, humanity, history, and justice, so that the decisions made by these rulers can benefit those he or she represents. The above description is quite idealistic, and I do believe that our focus is wronfully placed more on money and reputation than on the outlined characteristics of an educated leader. On this specific topic, adjustment is needed, not complete change.

We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society.

I say:
All of the above, I completely disagree with. You speak of "born" leaders, and speak of "some" people not being fit to rule. This goes against every grain of our Constitution, and it speaks of the evils of exactly what the forefathers feared of nobility.

It is impossible to have those beliefs, yet believe in equality for all under the eyes of the law. Therefore, how could you justify such a belief?

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification.

I say:
I agree, but not at the expense of constitutional limitations. All power is GRANTED by the people to the government, therfore the government must clearly show where it derived such power. There is no derivation of power as you speak. If you know of it, and I missed it, I implore you to point it out.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
We give law making decisions to local governments, decisions that are given attention to, the right decisions. We should not have state and local governments deciding major abortion stances and religious stances. Such decisions affect the national society. The idea of centralized government is keep order and unification.

I say:
That is personal opinion, and I would like to see where the Central or Federal government derives that power in accordance to the Constitution they claim to uphold.

SoccerfreakAB2 said:
This causes religious strife and tensions. This causes DIVISION. Bottom line to my second and final point for right now.

I say:
It causes division between states, as rightly should be allowed under constitutional law. I fail to see where the central government derives the power to make decisions that are clearly in control of the people, or the state. Division and strife are not bad if it provides ALTERNATIVES, which is what the states system was to embody. To be forced to live WITHOUT alternative, embodies NO meaning of the word liberty, or justice.

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.

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. Our representatives are all rich and educated. We don't find the will to learn within our students and the ability to lead within our schools. We find the man who is in our political party, who has money to fund a campaign, and who has "experience" in politics. That's where the fixing needs to go, not total replacement!

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 mean, you could also consider our federal government the "people" too.

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. It's 1500 C.E. Charles V of Spain had a completely centralized government due to the Inquisition (completely unjustified but irrelevant to main point). His people were all Catholics and they couldn't change religions. New religions sprang up due to Lutheranism, such as Calvinism and other pagan religions. These religions found their places among the nation. After Charles V died, his centralized government fell apart giving more power to the nobles and their respective states (symbolic of US states). These nobles were swung to one religion or the other. Religious strife and the inability to remove the complete differences and practices among the states brought Spain into complete civil war.

I don't see how the U.S. could avoid violence by dividing themeselves so consciously.

[Jack]

Speaking strictly of the Constitution, I've always been in awe of how well written the document was. It has to be general enough to stand over time, yet specific in certain areas to assure liberty and justice are never ignored.
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?