• 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!

America's Laws

Who do you want to control the laws?

  • The People

    Votes: 17 56.7%

  • The President

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • The Government

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 12 40.0%
  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
Cephus said:
It's certainly not the ultimate authority on everything that some people purport that it is.
Click to expand...

In terms of law in the United states -- it certanly is.

It is, according to itself, the supreme Law of the Land.
 
Goobieman said:
In terms of law in the United states -- it certanly is.

It is, according to itself, the supreme Law of the Land.
Click to expand...

the problem is that government expansionist politicians trample all over it any chance they get, as if they were the arbiters of the supreme law.

This is the only place where I see the document fail, and really that failing is with the people. It is due more to people failing to undertand that it is the supreme law of the US than any problem with the actual wording--it says clearly that it is the supreme law of the US.
 
other said:
the problem is that government expansionist politicians trample all over it any chance they get, as if they were the arbiters of the supreme law.

This is the only place where I see the document fail, and really that failing is with the people.
Click to expand...
This is EXACTLY right -- as soon as people realized that people could avail themselves of monies from the public coffers with their votes, so began our trip down-hill.
 
Goobieman said:
This is EXACTLY right -- as soon as people realized that people could avail themselves of monies from the public coffers with their votes, so began our trip down-hill.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what happened to Rome?... the public voting themselves "Bread and circuses“.?
 
Cephus said:
Yes, which means that even the founding fathers didn't intend for the Constitution to be the foundation of all of America's laws.

So much for this thread.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers did intend for it to be the foundation of our republic and every piece of legislation must stay within the confines of the constitution.

Why do you think they wrote it? :usflag2:
 
While the Constitution is a VERY VERY important document in the US it can still be changed. And it is the people that can change it. So when you boil it all down it is the people that should control the laws. Nothing else. After all if no one lived in the US then there wouldn't be a Constitution.

As people have said the Constitution is the foundation for our laws. But since it can be changed it is not the ultimate authority on our laws.
 
Crunch said:
Isn't that what happened to Rome?... the public voting themselves "Bread and circuses“.?
Click to expand...
Part of it, yes.

In US, we have the institutionalized assumption that entitlements cannot be cut because people are, well, entitled to them. This spending takes place regardless of available revenue, and takes pleace before all other spending is considerd.

Eventually, this will be unsustainable.
 
No, not really. Any real popular power in Rome was gone centuries before its fall. Rome remained quite strong for a long, long time, and no one was voting anything out of the treasury to themselves, except for Emperors.
 
WI Crippler said:
Its funny, because you know what capitalists are?

People.
Click to expand...

Sssshhhhhhh!

It's easier for the Dems to get votes if the masses believe that capitalists aren't really human.
 
Joe Castro said:
The capitalists are people, but they are not "the people".
Click to expand...

In that sense, neither are the Marxists. Which doesn't stop Marxists from claiming them, of course.
 
A capitalist is a person who respects the natural rights of others, including parents' rights, the right to homestead / trade / protect property, and so on. One can be a penniless Buddhist monk who begs for food every day, and still be a capitalist, as long as one does not initiate aggression against those who refuse to support him.

A socialist is a criminal, in theory if not yet in action. Would-be criminals do have a right to free speech, even though it does constitute a credible threat, but once they start to implement that threat their aggression needs to be reciprocated - by any means necessary.
 
Last edited:
Alex Libman said:
A capitalist is a person who respects the natural rights of others, including parents' rights, the right to homestead / trade / protect property, and so on.
Click to expand...

Funny, that doesn't sound much like General Pinochet or Suharto.

Alex Libman said:
A socialist is a criminal, in theory if not yet in action. Would-be criminals do have a right to free speech, even though it does constitute a credible threat, but once they start to implement that threat their aggression needs to be reciprocated - by any means necessary.
Click to expand...

So you consider men like this criminals? A war hero and British national treasure, a criminal?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn]Tony Benn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Was Clement Atlee a criminal?
 
PeteEU said:
Other.. Old white guys.
Click to expand...

I think it would be cool to vote all these old ass white breads out and out in some rappers. This country would get good and fast if someone like SnoopDog was running it:2razz:
 
Joe Castro said:
Funny, that doesn't sound much like General Pinochet or Suharto.
Click to expand...

Free market capitalism means no government intervention. Why bring up those two dictators? :confused:

Sure, one can easily make the case that state violence against socialism is the lesser of two evils, and I'd gladly pay to replace someone like Hugo Chavez with with Pinochet 2.0 as a pragmatic step in the right direction, but that is not what I'm idealizing here.


Joe Castro said:
So you consider men like this criminals? A war hero and British national treasure, a criminal?
Click to expand...

Everyone who initiates aggression against other human beings, or supports an organization that does this (i.e. government) is a criminal to a degree.
 
Alex Libman said:
Free market capitalism
Click to expand...

...is a perpetually nonexistent theoretical abstraction.

Alex Libman said:
Sure, one can easily make the case that state violence against socialism is the lesser of two evils, and I'd gladly pay to replace someone like Hugo Chavez with with Pinochet 2.0 as a pragmatic step in the right direction, but that is not what I'm idealizing here.
Click to expand...

Of course you would. As someone who's democratically elected and enjoys broad popular support, Chavez would understandably be despised by any pseudo-libertarian capitalist who secretly (or in your case, openly) fetishizes authoritarianism of one variant or another. :shrug:
 
Alex Libman said:
Free market capitalism means no government intervention. Why bring up those two dictators? :confused:
Click to expand...

You are only confused because you subscribe to an idealized redefinition of what it means to be a capitalist where by you accept the good of the capitalist but reinterpret the bad. It is an unfalsifiable position you are latching to, thus we must reject it.

Alex Libman said:
Everyone who initiates aggression against other human beings, or supports an organization that does this (i.e. government) is a criminal to a degree.
Click to expand...

this is just to misunderstand the term "criminal" and again undertake a path of redefinition. What is criminal is decided by state institutions such as government. So if the government makes law, and the government is socialist, and the government or its supporters do not break any law, then they are not a criminal. The same can be said of any capitalist government. There may be a case to argue for their immorality, but certainly not criminality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom