• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nikki Haley: 'I could not look my kids in the face and justify that flag'

Yet if you read true American history, the founders did not want a strong central government, in other words what we have now. Hence the reason for the 10th amendment, the most ignored amendment ever.

Some founders didn't, others did. There is a reason the Articles of Confederation failed, they gave far too much power to the states and made the federal government pretty impotent.

But regardless of what the Founders might have wanted, we saw how destructive it was to give states more power, more rights than the individual people (also given rights alongside states in the 10th Amendment), hence why the majority (it does take quite a lot to change the US Constitution) choose to change the Constitution in a way that limited states' rights, states' power in favor of individual rights. That is much more important to me than states' rights, particularly since many of the most influential founding fathers were very much against pure democracies and/or tyrannies of the majorities.
 
Some founders didn't, others did. There is a reason the Articles of Confederation failed, they gave far too much power to the states and made the federal government pretty impotent.

But regardless of what the Founders might have wanted, we saw how destructive it was to give states more power, more rights than the individual people (also given rights alongside states in the 10th Amendment), hence why the majority (it does take quite a lot to change the US Constitution) choose to change the Constitution in a way that limited states' rights, states' power in favor of individual rights. That is much more important to me than states' rights, particularly since many of the most influential founding fathers were very much against pure democracies and/or tyrannies of the majorities.

I know it takes a lot to change the Constitution. That's why we only have 27 amendments, and one of those was to repeal another. Of course the fact is the states started to really lose their voice when the 17th amendment was adopted. As much as I like being able to have a say in who goes to the Senate from NC, since I don't trust most of the turkeys in Raleigh any further than I can throw them, the states did have more say before the 17th amendment came along.
 
I see with #3 you admit that Lincoln was not the saint people have been indoctrinated to think he was. Glad to see someone else admit it.

No president, not even Jefferson Davis is/was a saint. ;)
 
I know it takes a lot to change the Constitution. That's why we only have 27 amendments, and one of those was to repeal another. Of course the fact is the states started to really lose their voice when the 17th amendment was adopted. As much as I like being able to have a say in who goes to the Senate from NC, since I don't trust most of the turkeys in Raleigh any further than I can throw them, the states did have more say before the 17th amendment came along.

Why even add amendments when you get the courts to say the commerce clause grants the federal government to regulate business and individual interactions between people or other such nonsense? People like Rogue never needed the amendment process to do what they wanted, but just corrupt justices.
 
I know it takes a lot to change the Constitution. That's why we only have 27 amendments, and one of those was to repeal another. Of course the fact is the states started to really lose their voice when the 17th amendment was adopted. As much as I like being able to have a say in who goes to the Senate from NC, since I don't trust most of the turkeys in Raleigh any further than I can throw them, the states did have more say before the 17th amendment came along.

The 14th, not the 17th, took away much of the states' power that I was referring to. That was the power to impose the will of a simple majority over the others living in or even just passing through their state. The 14th made constitutional protections that only applied on a federal level, or when it came to the federal government, available when it came to state interactions as well. This is the Amendment that helped turned us to "the United States is", vice "the United States are".
 
Why even add amendments when you get the courts to say the commerce clause grants the federal government to regulate business and individual interactions between people or other such nonsense? People like Rogue never needed the amendment process to do what they wanted, but just corrupt justices.

I know the system ain't perfect, but compared to other countries we do have the best in the world. Sure there have been some stupid court rulings but the judges are not perfect, and frankly neither are the politicians.
 
You can't run with the big dogs stay on the porch. I guess the facts got to ya finally huh?

Yea, that's it. :roll:

One more question: Did the South win or lose the war? :lamo
 
The 14th, not the 17th, took away much of the states' power that I was referring to. That was the power to impose the will of a simple majority over the others living in or even just passing through their state. The 14th made constitutional protections that only applied on a federal level, or when it came to the federal government, available when it came to state interactions as well. This is the Amendment that helped turned us to "the United States is", vice "the United States are".

Then why in the world do people fuss about the 17th amendment that gives people the right to elect senators rather than the legislature? If the 14th is worse fuss about it!
 
I know the system ain't perfect, but compared to other countries we do have the best in the world. Sure there have been some stupid court rulings but the judges are not perfect, and frankly neither are the politicians.

It pretty hard to take a trade dispute clause dealing with governments and turn into a clause that allows the government to regulate private citizens.
 
Yea, that's it. :roll:

One more question: Did the South win or lose the war? :lamo

Glad you admit the facts won. Yes the south lost the war but in the end they did win when, you might as well face it the federal government has gotten way bigger than it was ever intended to be.
 
Then why in the world do people fuss about the 17th amendment that gives people the right to elect senators rather than the legislature? If the 14th is worse fuss about it!

How would I know? I've heard more fuss about the 14th, at least in that people don't like that it is used to apply to more than just race, as they would prefer (despite it not specifically mentioning race at all in the EPC, which is what does much of the transfer of power.
 
Like I said, they ain't perfect and there have been some stupid rulings.

It wasn't something they did on accident. Just like it was no accident they said the welfare clause allowed welfare. The courts have been a very successful tool to grow government authority.
 
So in other words you're glad this country has strayed from the way the founders intended for it to be?

Well, unless you loathe the interstate highway system, radio and television, clean air, clean water, social safety nets, regulations to protect you from predatory business practices, a boarder patrol, the preservation of our national parks, the ability to send a letter clean across the US for 50 cents, a national weather service to warn you of imminent danger, inspectors to ensure your food is safe, etc., etc., etc.. Then in that regard, I suspect you too are glad that our government hasn't remained the size that it was in 1803.
 
Well, unless you loathe the interstate highway system, radio and television, clean air, clean water, social safety nets, regulations to protect you from predatory business practices, a boarder patrol, the preservation of our national parks, the ability to send a letter clean across the US for 50 cents, a national weather service to warn you of imminent danger, inspectors to ensure your food is safe, etc., etc., etc.. Then in that regard, I suspect you too are glad that our government hasn't remained the size that it was in 1803.

In those ways, it is good. In other ways, it is not. There are some things that need reform in this country, but otherwise the things you mentioned are not bad. Although stamp prices have gone up a little high, but then again everyone and his brother has email now.
 
In those ways, it is good. In other ways, it is not. There are some things that need reform in this country, but otherwise the things you mentioned are not bad. Although stamp prices have gone up a little high, but then again everyone and his brother has email now.

Although I agree that some things the federal government does are not good, I'm curious as to what things you think those are. Most of the other stuff is handled by the states. And the feds step in generally when a citizen of that state feels their rights have been oppressed by a state.
 
In those ways, it is good. In other ways, it is not. There are some things that need reform in this country, but otherwise the things you mentioned are not bad. Although stamp prices have gone up a little high, but then again everyone and his brother has email now.

The pony express would carry your letter across the country for ten dollars in the mid 1850's, and it would take a couple of weeks!! What's that in today's money, $300.00? The price of stamps haven't gone up.
 
Yes they were but you choose not to believe. Par for the course though.

But we haven't been debating long enough for you to know what is "par for the course" for me!!!
 
Back
Top Bottom