Limited government?

Torus34 · Jul 5, 2020

Some of today's 'conservatives' have expressed a preference for 'limited government'. As with so many phrases, it is not necessarily easy to unpack it and discover the full meaning and implications.

In this particular case, I'm not sure if 'limited government' extends to limited power of the administrative function.

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2020

Torus34 said:
Some of today's 'conservatives' have expressed a preference for 'limited government'. As with so many phrases, it is not necessarily easy to unpack it and discover the full meaning and implications.

In this particular case, I'm not sure if 'limited government' extends to limited power of the administrative function.

It generally refers to the concept of the federal government having only a few (listed or enumerated) constitutional powers as amplified by the 10A:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Simpletruther · Jul 5, 2020

Torus34 said:
Some of today's 'conservatives' have expressed a preference for 'limited government'. As with so many phrases, it is not necessarily easy to unpack it and discover the full meaning and implications.

In this particular case, I'm not sure if 'limited government' extends to limited power of the administrative function.

For many Of us, it it means a literal interpretation of the constitution, which greatly limits the scope of federal government, leaving most powers and functions to the states. The Fed (through the scotus) interpreted its limitations away robbing power for itself.

I think this would be better in the long run, it allows freedom for more local cultures to do things their way, and creates political competition. It would create a “best worse case” scenario. It’s unlimely that all 50 states would run their states into the crapper. Whereas, in our centralized model, the whole thing could be run o to the ground.

danielpalos · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
It generally refers to the concept of the federal government having only a few (listed or enumerated) constitutional powers as amplified by the 10A:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

Luther · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
It generally refers to the concept of the federal government having only a few (listed or enumerated) constitutional powers as amplified by the 10A:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It generally refers to the concept of the federal government having only a few (listed or enumerated) constitutional powers

How ya think we're doing?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2020

danielpalos said:
There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.

There is no medical care or education clause either.

The federal government often grants itself new powers by (loosely?) relating them to commerce (to include individual spending within a state), taxation (to include a penalty for not buying a specific 'private' good/service) and/or promoting the general welfare (via income redistribution programs) with the SCOTUS offering 'interpretive' support for this continuing expansion of the the federal government's powers without any need for constitutional amendment. In other words, once congress deems a matter (issue?) to be 'important' the SCOTUS is reluctant to deny it the (new) power to address it via federal legislation.

Luther · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
There is no medical care or education clause either.

The federal government often grants itself new powers by (loosely?) relating them to commerce (to include individual spending within a state), taxation (to include a penalty for not buying a specific 'private' good/service) and/or promoting the general welfare (via income redistribution programs) with the SCOTUS offering 'interpretive' support for this continuing expansion of the the federal government's powers without any need for constitutional amendment. In other words, once congress deems a matter (issue?) to be 'important' the SCOTUS is reluctant to deny it the (new) power to address it via federal legislation.

There is no medical care or education clause either.

I keep trying to tell him that

It's like talking to a wall(LOL)

danielpalos · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
There is no medical care or education clause either.

The federal government often grants itself new powers by (loosely?) relating them to commerce (to include individual spending within a state), taxation (to include a penalty for not buying a specific 'private' good/service) and/or promoting the general welfare (via income redistribution programs) with the SCOTUS offering 'interpretive' support for this continuing expansion of the the federal government's powers without any need for constitutional amendment. In other words, once congress deems a matter (issue?) to be 'important' the SCOTUS is reluctant to deny it the (new) power to address it via federal legislation.

Actually, there is. We even have a federal, uniformed health service. And, Persons of the People have to learn how to read because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2020

Luther said:
How ya think we're doing?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Yep, the federal "budget" process appears to have dropped any pretense of balancing annual spending and revenue. So long as this scheme results in a congressional re-election rate of over 90% we should expect no changes.

Luther · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, the federal "budget" process appears to have dropped any pretense of balancing annual spending and revenue. So long as this scheme results in a congressional re-election rate of over 90% we should expect no changes.

Yep, the federal "budget" process appears to have dropped any pretense of balancing annual spending and revenue

Yes, but also showing the out of control powers of the Fed Gov

Like giving away free(monopoly) money$$$$

Coronavirus stimulus package: Here'''s what'''s in the $2 trillion relief bill

So long as this scheme results in a congressional re-election rate of over 90% we should expect no changes.

As I have told you before, voted in by a VAIN citizenry(something happens first)

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2020

danielpalos said:
Actually, there is. We even have a federal, uniformed health service. And, Persons of the People have to learn how to read because there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The existence (creation?) of cabinet level, federal departments for health and education did not automagically amend the constitution. The SCOTUS is the only (potential) limit on federal government (congressional) power and seems reluctant to say no to most federal government expansion even where well beyond the constitutional 'limits' initially established.

Thoreau72 · Jul 5, 2020

Luther said:
How ya think we're doing?

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Constitutional governance does not exist in this country. That is not the document's fault, it is the fault of the humans holding office.

Luther · Jul 5, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
Constitutional governance does not exist in this country. That is not the document's fault, it is the fault of the humans holding office.

it is the fault of the humans holding office.

But... the even bigger fault/problem is the citizenry that keeps voting/enabling this

Politicians are citizens themselves

“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.”–Montesquieu, Spirit of the laws, 1748.

Thoreau72 · Jul 5, 2020

Luther said:
But... the even bigger fault/problem is the citizenry that keeps voting/enabling this

Politicians are citizens themselves

That's true, but the citizens are like hamsters on a treadmill. The treadmill is our bankrupt duopoly.

Luther · Jul 5, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
That's true, but the citizens are like hamsters on a treadmill. The treadmill is our bankrupt duopoly.

That's true, but the citizens are like hamsters on a treadmill.

well, ya know....

“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.”–Montesquieu, Spirit of the laws, 1748.

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2020

Luther said:
Yes, but also showing the out of control powers of the Fed Gov

Like giving away free(monopoly) money$$$$

Coronavirus stimulus package: Here'''s what'''s in the $2 trillion relief bill

As I have told you before, voted in by a VAIN citizenry(something happens first)

Nope, congress is letting you (and the rest of we the sheeple?) know who is in control and basically daring you (us?) to challenge their ability to borrow from future generations in order to reward the donor class today. It is certainly both legal and constitutional for those congress critters to spend far in excess of what they dare ask for (demand?) in federal taxation.

Luther · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, congress is letting you (and the rest of we the sheeple?) know who is in control and basically daring you (us?) to challenge their ability to borrow from future generations in order to reward the donor class today. It is certainly both legal and constitutional for those congress critters to spend far in excess of what they dare ask for (demand?) in federal taxation.

congress is letting you (and the rest of we the sheeple?) know who is in control and basically daring you (us?) to challenge their ability to borrow from future generations in order to reward the donor class today.

Again, something happens FIRST

“The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.”

–Montesquieu, Spirit of the laws, 1748.

danielpalos · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
The existence (creation?) of cabinet level, federal departments for health and education did not automagically amend the constitution. The SCOTUS is the only (potential) limit on federal government (congressional) power and seems reluctant to say no to most federal government expansion even where well beyond the constitutional 'limits' initially established.

There is no need for any amendment.

For more than 200 years, men and women have served in what is today called the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service. Originally created to prevent the spread of disease from returning sailors, the USPHS Commissioned Corps now plays a critical role as protector of our nation’s health in all 50 states and overseas.--https://www.usphs.gov/about-us

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2020

Luther said:
Again, something happens FIRST

Of the 535 congress critters a (mere) citizen may vote for (or against) only 3 of them. To make matters more complicated, unless that congress critter can be (successfully) replaced during the major party primary election cycle then the citizen must vote for the candidate from the "wrong" major political party in order to try to do so.

Luther · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
Of the 535 congress critters a (mere) citizen may vote for (or against) only 3 of them. To make matters more complicated, unless that congress critter can be (successfully) replaced during the major party primary election cycle then the citizen must vote for the candidate from the "wrong" major political party in order to try to do so.

O

f the 535 congress critters a (mere) citizen may vote for (or against) only 3 of them.

I think you're still "Barking up the wrong tree"

If our very citizenry is compromised(And it is) then our whole election process is therefore also compromised?

Can I maybe get an Amen?

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2020

danielpalos said:
There is no need for any amendment.

Yep, because (as I had stated) congress simply deemed it 'important' to add that federal government power. Once a federal government power is added, expansion of it is virtually assured since, unlike the states, spending is not limited by revenue.

ttwtt78640 · Jul 5, 2020

Luther said:
O

I think you're still "Barking up the wrong tree"

If our very citizenry is compromised(And it is) then our whole election process is therefore also compromised?

Can I maybe get an Amen?

We have allowed the political parties (aka the donor class) to define who is (or is not) a viable (aka sufficiently funded) candidate.

danielpalos · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, because (as I had stated) congress simply deemed it 'important' to add that federal government power. Once a federal government power is added, expansion of it is virtually assured since, unlike the states, spending is not limited by revenue.

There was no "addition". Our welfare clause is General not limited nor common in any way.

Luther · Jul 5, 2020

ttwtt78640 said:
We have allowed the political parties (aka the donor class) to define who is (or is not) a viable (aka sufficiently funded) candidate.

I would worry more about these guys(wink)

danielpalos · Jul 5, 2020

Luther said:
I would worry more about these guys(wink)

Those "brazen hussy women" are making us put up with their modern bikini fashion in modern times.

Limited government?

Sometimes wrong

Another California Refugee

Sometimes wrong

Another California Refugee

Sometimes wrong

Another California Refugee

Sometimes wrong

Another California Refugee

Another California Refugee

Sometimes wrong

Another California Refugee

Sometimes wrong

Another California Refugee

Sometimes wrong

Sometimes wrong

Another California Refugee