illegal to buy light bulbs...

[nonseq]

Q9 - The Constitution is not black and white. There is not one interpretation. If there weren't wiggle room in it, it wouldn't have been adopted. Our Founding Fathers did not act with one mind and one purpose or even much agreement. It had to be loosey-goosey just to get everyone on board.

That's politics. And human nature.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
In the Federalist Papers as well as the opinions of the VAST majority of the Founders, the almost unanimous agreement is that the Constitution strictly limits the powers of Congress to those enumerated in Article One, Section 8. Anything not delegated is reserved to the States, and this is reinforced by the Tenth Amendment. The only Founder that really dissented was Hamilton, and that was only AFTER the Constitution was adopted and he had power. Besides all that, he stuck out like a sore thumb among the Founding Fathers, as he was a monarchist through and through.

So the Founders, in the adoption of the Constitution, agreed that it was to be strictly interpreted. The (few) that disagreed only made it known after the Constitution was adopted and they were in positions of power.

 

[nonseq]

I haven't done much reading of first sources in all that, but I have studied religion in colonial America. (and read first sources - burn my eyes) The process wasn't that uniform. There was quite a bit of wheeling and dealing.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Trust me, for the Constitution, my number one source of information is primary sources. Everything else is auxiliary.

Of course there was wheeling and dealing; the Constitution that was arrived at, though, was agreed to be a strict, limiting document. Personally, I - along with Thomas Jefferson and the anti-Federalists - think they should have just amended the Articles of Confederation. But that's just my extreme, radical libertarian view.

 

[nonseq]

Have you ever served on a committee? Or had to go to a planning meeting? Or did any other group work with a bunch of people who all thought each was right and the others wrong? And each one had to be jollied along until a consensus was reached? Heck, have you ever served on a jury?

Jefferson and Madison et al were men. Just men. Smarter than average no doubt, but just men. And men of their times. Times that WE would not find comfortable. At all. They had their flaws. They weren't right all the time. Hopefully they were smart enough to know that.

We have decided to be a nation and not a loose confederation of states. The former USSR strove to be nation yet was only a loose confederation of states. Where is it now?

Phasing out lightbulbs is nothing to get apoplectic about.

There are a lot of other things that ought to get your knickers in a wad. Dinna fash youself!

Worry more about women not allowed to refuse surgery. Or those lovely laws that allow property to be confiscated from private citizens on the SUSPICION of wrongdoing. Or invoking eminent domain to benefit private corporations. Or just the fact that mens rea rarely applies EVER.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
All those things you listed are concerns as well; this thread is simply dealing specifically with the bulbs.

As for the USSR, it was NOT a loose confederation of states, it was a centralized empire, plain and simple. That's a little like saying 18th-century England was a "loose confederation of states." Rome was a nation; look how it turned out. Also, under the Constitution, each state remains an equal party to the central government. Notice the prominent use of nullification throughout US history, especially in the case of the Fugitive Slave Act.

The fact is, if the Constitution needs to be changed, by all means, change it! The restrictions being that it must be done through the Amendment process, rather than a deliberate twisting of the original intent by dishonest judges. Here's the way it's supposed to work: The United States abide by the Constitution as the Framers wrote it, and if they see a problem, they change it through a Constitutional amendment. If a state disagrees with the amendment, it can either live with it or leave the Union.

Seems like a good set-up to me. The minority have recourse against the majority, and the Constitution can be improved as needed.

 

[Dunkopf]

Everyone has their opinion Q. You're certainly welcome to yours too. What you think and the way things actually work are very different though. If the Constitution is as black and white as you think it is, than it doesn't have much power. Just another piece of paper. Very little in life is absolute. I applaud you for all your reading. Now go out and live life so you can find the truth.

Books are all opinions too. Authors of non fiction books fill their books with their opinions, Even your source papers straight from the horses mouth are filled with opinions. Jefferson wasn't the only one involved. There were many others. They all contributed. Libertarians are much like Orthodox of any religion. Stuck in a box, thinking their way is the only way. Think outside the box. You'll be a much more rounded and full individual. Remember, you can take a child and shape them into anything you want by controlling and influencing the books they read. That's why I am a proponent of public school.

By the way. Laws are legal till proven otherwise in a court of law. Not a naive statement just a simple fact. I don't have much respect for those people in robes either. They are the most powerful branch of government though. When a cop tells me to do something I will do it whether I think he is right or not. Unless it is morally wrong. When my boss ask me to do something that's not in my job description I do it. It's part of life. Not a naive statement just a simple fact.

Chernobyl was built by the government of the USSR. Of course it was built crummy with minimum safeguards. They don't value their people like we do here. If you trust a greedy corporation to meet safeguards without govt oversight then all I can say is Bahhhh. I wouldn't leave my house if there was no govt oversight on construction. You would have been better off using a 3rd world country and the massive deaths they have every time there is an earthquake. They don't have any govt oversight. Every time they have an earthquake everything crumbles.

JMO

 

[Q9]

Quote:
Please tell me you're kidding. You think public schools do a good job with that? Why is it that the vast majority of Americans are big-government folks? I know conservatives claim not to be, but it's obvious that most don't really mean it. The "Patriot" Act is a horrifying case in point. Also, students are generally only treated to one version of our history - that is, the nationalist one created by the sickening Justice Marshall and the equally disgusting Alexander Hamilton, and propogated by the likes of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln. Rarely, if ever, do they get the other side, offered by the majority of the Founders, John Calhoun, and recent historian Thomas Woods, not to mention countless others, who's opinions are a good deal more authoritative than the ones on the other side.

Rest assured, I do my best to get a wide variety of opinions on these issues; for the Constitution, obviously, the best sources are those who created or had a large influence on the creation of the Constitution. It's practically unanimous that it's a limiting document that can be improved by Amendment. The Constitution is - was - a strong document BECAUSE it is a limited and limiting document. It was created to secure our freedoms from government infringement, and to restrain the power of the Federal Government, while retaining the power of the sovereign States.

Trust me, no corporation would be careless with a nuke plant. The public is already suspicious, perhaps a little unjustly, of nuclear power, and there's no way in heck a company would be stupid enough to cut corners on one of those. The sheer cost of constructing a plant in the first place would prevent such idiocy, and the potential wrath of the public would provide another huge incentive to keep the plant safe. As for our politicians "caring" about our people, some of them do. Quite a few really don't. Politicians are just as greedy as any corporation, possibly more so, and they don't have to worry mcuh about losing their jobs - blame it on capitalism and get re-elected. That's how FDR did it, that's how they still do it. Besides, they all have "golden parachutes."

As for your comparison to Third World countries, have you not noticed that, with the exception of Somalia*, the government is completely overbearing and tyrranical? The sick fact is that most of the large companies are run by people in the government, who have no incentive for safety. After all, they have government guns and other people's money at their disposal.



* I say this because Somalia, as you probably know, has no real government, being divided into roughly 30 different Islamic factions, in addition to the "official" government.

 

[Organics North]

Quote:
Please tell me you're kidding. You think public schools do a good job with that?

Yes I do!!!!!!!!!!
I strongly support public education. IMO without it the country falls apart right fast into a bunch of different republics that are constantly at war with each other...

Public schools may be FAR FAR from perfect. But they have a moderating effect..
Keep things calm... stable....moderated...tolerant.... America is the melting pot of the world, lots of different ideology's is what makes us strong, sure it is frustrating is when "things don't get done" in our government, but in a way it is designed that way. A democracy should here all voices ..

You Q9, are a gifted, intelligent, articulate, well educated individual. I throughly enjoy reading your posts and contemplating your view point...... May I suggest you dive into what opposes your viewpoint and find the good in it.

IMO Very little is "black and white" in this world it is mostly gray.... My kids go to public school, not for the superior education but for the lessons learned in dealing with teachers and kids that may see things differently than they do..

Tolerance....
ON

 

[Organics North]

Quote:
Nothing needs to be done by the Congress. It will take care of itself. When coal and oil are in short supply, the prices will go up making alternative sources of energy more attractive. Entrepreneurs will fill the gap without mandates from congress that things need to be done right now.

I do love the simplicity of free market economics....

and nearly agree 100%...................
.......HOWEVER, I have issues with the concept... One of those issues is............Subsidies......Energy is subsidized.. We do not directly pay for the true cost of fossil fuels in our fossil fuel prices.

I understand most power plants burn coal not oil, but oil is a fossil fuel too and I consider the use of the United States of America's military in the middle east as one giant subsidy for the oil companies.!
We tax payers pick up the bill, while oil companies make record profits???
After all why do we care if there is peace in the middle east if it was not to stabilize global fossil fuel production?

I personally consider fossil fuel dirty in more than one way. I consider each "Watt" used to be covered in the blood of our young men, the young men of the "enemy" and the unfortunate innocent that inevitably get caught between. I feel fossil fuel subsides of all kinds are keeping fossil fuel prices artificially low, and profits artificially high while, holding back the development and implementation of alternate energy sources via free market economics.

Lets take away ALL subsides and let free market economics do its thing.....

ON