View Poll Results: Favor ongoing revamped C C C

Voters
6. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    3 50.00%
  • no

    3 50.00%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Would you favor a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps

  1. #21
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: Would you favor a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I am simply explaining what I'd vote for and what I'd oppose, along with my reasons. The thread is asking our opinion, is it not? I certainly don't claim to have any power to enforce the constitution, if that's what you think.
    There are a number of arguments against the federal government administering a program like this I would accept as logically valid, even if I didn't agree with them. But when the U.S. Constitution asserts that the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of such things, there's basically no theoretical limit on the number of policies the federal government administers that can be constitutionally (and therefore legally) valid.

    The Supreme Court could say the 2nd Amendment as currently worded really means, "Absolutely no one can have any weapon of any kind," and require a policy of confiscating all privately held weapons, and it wouldn't be unconstitutional. It would be an abuse of power, an affront to all sense and logic, and an awful policy that would likely result in the dissolution and/or reform of the Supreme Court, but under the current powers vested in the Supreme Court, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to rule the strongly guaranteed right to bear arms in print really means there is no right to bear arms at all.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Would you favor a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    There are a number of arguments against the federal government administering a program like this I would accept as logically valid, even if I didn't agree with them. But when the U.S. Constitution asserts that the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of such things, there's basically no theoretical limit on the number of policies the federal government administers that can be constitutionally (and therefore legally) valid.

    The Supreme Court could say the 2nd Amendment as currently worded really means, "Absolutely no one can have any weapon of any kind," and require a policy of confiscating all privately held weapons, and it wouldn't be unconstitutional. It would be an abuse of power, an affront to all sense and logic, and an awful policy that would likely result in the dissolution and/or reform of the Supreme Court, but under the current powers vested in the Supreme Court, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to rule the strongly guaranteed right to bear arms in print really means there is no right to bear arms at all.
    As I said, the thread is asking whether we favor a particular government action. I don't favor that action, because I don't think it comports with the Constitution, and therefore believe it to be illegal and inappropriate.

    Again, I realize that my opinion means squat, but it is the basis for my own personal votes and political choices. I don't claim to have any authority over anyone else when it comes to the Constitution.

  3. #23
    User listener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-22-13 @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    52

    Re: Would you favor a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps

    I do not think we should ever have more teachers, fireman, policemen or other public workers than are needed but I think one of the tragedies of the recession we are still largely in is the number of public workers necessarily laid off for lack of funds.

    David Brooks said that the stimulus package should have been entirely for infrastructure and help for states so they would not need to lay off needed workers. The tax breaks were nice but not as economically helpful as would have been infrastructure spending and hokding on to needed government employees. He said that before the stimulus package passed and I think he was right on.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Would you favor a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    There are a number of arguments against the federal government administering a program like this I would accept as logically valid, even if I didn't agree with them. But when the U.S. Constitution asserts that the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of such things, there's basically no theoretical limit on the number of policies the federal government administers that can be constitutionally (and therefore legally) valid.
    As an aside, are you asserting that the constitution gives the supreme court the SOLE power to decide on constitutionality? If so, I'd like to see the section where this can be found.

  5. #25
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Would you favor a revamped Civilian Conservation Corps

    Quote Originally Posted by listener View Post
    I do not think we should ever have more teachers, fireman, policemen or other public workers than are needed but I think one of the tragedies of the recession we are still largely in is the number of public workers necessarily laid off for lack of funds.
    That is a necessary response to over-extending government jobs/bennies that has been happening for quite some time now. Imagine what is going to happen when John and Jane Doe, who are not even government employees, but just lucky recipients of government funds, which they never, or barely, paid into are facing cut-backs as well. As much as we want to pretend we can afford virtually any amount of government subsidizing, we can't, and we will have to pay the piper at some point.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •