• 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!

**** the Founding Fathers

Night_Ranger said:
This guy again. He actually believes that socialism doesn't imply or employ a specific economic system. So take what he says with a grain of salt.

Or, in this case, a 500lb truck load of salt.
Click to expand...

Our form of socialism is defined by our federal Constitution and supreme social law of the land.
 
danielpalos said:
Our form of socialism is defined by our federal Constitution and supreme social law of the land.
Click to expand...

We live in a constitutional representative republic, not a socialist, or "leftist" utopia.

EDIT: This type of government is essentially the polar opposite of a socialistic system. For example, we don't have mass genocides here, like in every other form of socialist government.

Wait, we do have mass genocides here. It's called abortion. But according to the liberal left abortion is not genocide, so if we play by their rules the 65,000,000 unborn children who have been aborted do not qualify as victims of genocide.

Hey, I'm just playing by their rules here...
 
Last edited:
American said:
I can't think of a single person that would know WTF they're doing.
Click to expand...

The founders certainly didn't and came up with a half assed constitution.

I think 2 or 3 ordinary guys could write a better constitution on a Sunday afternoon, after a couple of beers.
 
danielpalos said:
Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. We could not do a better job today, even with Quantum Supremacy. A new plan for the new world.
Click to expand...

:lamo


OK, time to step out of hero worship mode and look at the vague and ambiguous constitution they handed us.

It's poorly written and constructs a poor system of government.


It's clear the founders were just a bunch of well meaning fools who didn't have a clue what they were doing.
 
danielpalos said:
Government is socialism. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.
Click to expand...

Perhaps take a look at how the founding father's set up the balance of power. Polar opposite of what you have in a socialistic society, right?
 
Rich2018 said:
:lamo


OK, time to step out of hero worship mode and look at the vague and ambiguous constitution they handed us.

It's poorly written and constructs a poor system of government.


It's clear the founders were just a bunch of well meaning fools who didn't have a clue what they were doing.
Click to expand...

Again, this is mostly baseless and unproven "spin" that the liberal left is known for. They state blatant untruths about our governmental system to push their agenda.

Need I remind you, this "agenda" is not grounded in truth. It is grounded in fiction. So take what these liberals (and socialists, because they are now very closely related) with a grain of salt.

They seem to forget a lot of history when they call the constitution "vague and ambiguous", but the left is "infamous" for this type of behavior, so it should come as no surprise to any objective thinker.
 
danielpalos said:
Government is socialism. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any contingency.
Click to expand...

Our "general welfare" clause has been bastardized beyond belief. It was Roger Sherman who introduce the "general welfare" clause into the Constitution. Sherman introduced this passage to ensure the term would be connected with the clause for laying taxes and duties, he wanted to make sure that taxes would only be collected for specific powers. Sherman said that the "objects of the Union were few", he listed defence against foreign danger, defence against internal disputes and regulating foreign commerce and drawing revenue from it. It was not there for the government to use as it wished or to grant some type of unlimited power.

Madison remarked on the "general welfare" clause as such: " If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and we are the sole and supreme judge of the welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all road other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislature down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions of the general welfare." It seem that Madison's warnings have become be very prophetic.
 
Rich2018 said:
:lamo


OK, time to step out of hero worship mode and look at the vague and ambiguous constitution they handed us.

It's poorly written and constructs a poor system of government.


It's clear the founders were just a bunch of well meaning fools who didn't have a clue what they were doing.
Click to expand...

lol. There is no Thing ambiguous about our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
 
Night_Ranger said:
Perhaps take a look at how the founding father's set up the balance of power. Polar opposite of what you have in a socialistic society, right?
Click to expand...

Only because they lacked the technologies and the infrastructure.

Regardless; our Founding Fathers could not think of every given Thing and included a general welfare clause to cover any given contingency. Our Constitution defines and limits our form of socialism. It is a social contract enforceable at law. Evolution happens and our Founding Fathers accounted for it with their "object orientation" of our supreme law of the land. A separation of powers is federal doctrine not individual doctrine even if individuals may need recourse to it.
 
Rich2018 said:
It's a poor system of government based on a poorly written constitution.

Evidenced that no other democratic country uses the US system to base its system of government on.
Click to expand...

It is essentially the same system of government... three branches that check each other... call them branches our not, it is irrelevant. Even here, in your Parliamentary Oasis, Judges (Judicial) check the Legislative and the Prime Minister (Executive) tries to lead but can be blocked by Parliament (Legislative) and people are represented by Ministers that vote (Republic Style) on our behalf, etc.
 
Terryj said:
Our "general welfare" clause has been bastardized beyond belief. It was Roger Sherman who introduce the "general welfare" clause into the Constitution. Sherman introduced this passage to ensure the term would be connected with the clause for laying taxes and duties, he wanted to make sure that taxes would only be collected for specific powers. Sherman said that the "objects of the Union were few", he listed defence against foreign danger, defence against internal disputes and regulating foreign commerce and drawing revenue from it. It was not there for the government to use as it wished or to grant some type of unlimited power.

Madison remarked on the "general welfare" clause as such: " If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and we are the sole and supreme judge of the welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all road other than post-roads; in short, everything, from the highest object of state legislature down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions of the general welfare." It seem that Madison's warnings have become be very prophetic.
Click to expand...

Healthcare reform and infrastructure development is necessary and proper.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It is essentially the same system of government... three branches that check each other... call them branches our not, it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No it's not

It is a presidential form of government - much favored by tin-pot third world dictatorships like Syria, Libya, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nigeria, Argentina (pretty much all of South America actually)

The judiciary should NEVER be regarded as a branch of government. It should be seen as 100% independent from it


Even here, in your Parliamentary Oasis, Judges (Judicial) check the Legislative and the Prime Minister (Executive) tries to lead but can be blocked by Parliament (Legislative) and people are represented by Ministers that vote (Republic Style) on our behalf, etc.
Click to expand...

Oasis? - you mean the democratic system that every other Western democratic country uses (other than the USA - with a note that France tried to cobble together a hybrid system of a parliamentary government AND with a president with certain powers)

In the UK judges do interpret the law and a challenge can be made to government policy. But the judiciary is very jealous of its independence from government
The Prime Minister is but part of the executive. He/she is the "first amongst equals" as the saying goes and it is the cabinet that decides policy
The government must control the confidence of the legislature at all times and will fall if it loses a no confidence vote
The Prime Minister must retain the confidence of his/her party and again will fall if they lose it (as happened last year when PM Theresa May had to resign and Boris Johnson too over)

It is a flexible system with much better check and balances than the USA has with its presidential system

In the UK, there is a healthy disrespect towards government and the PM in particular is not treated with some kind of holy reverence that Americans have for their president

I think the best illustration of this was in 1980 when the Olympics were held in Moscow
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, President Reagan and PM Margaret Thatcher both ordered their respective Olympic teams to stat away.

No American athlete went to the Olympics
Almost the entire British team gave a collection F-You to Thatcher and went

The British government cannot and wouldn't dare put a country off limits (except in wartime) but you try going to Cuba and see how much jail time you get when you come back to the USA.
 
Rich2018 said:
No it's not

It is a presidential form of government - much favored by tin-pot third world dictatorships like Syria, Libya, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nigeria, Argentina (pretty much all of South America actually)

The judiciary should NEVER be regarded as a branch of government. It should be seen as 100% independent from it




Oasis? - you mean the democratic system that every other Western democratic country uses (other than the USA - with a note that France tried to cobble together a hybrid system of a parliamentary government AND with a president with certain powers)

In the UK judges do interpret the law and a challenge can be made to government policy. But the judiciary is very jealous of its independence from government
The Prime Minister is but part of the executive. He/she is the "first amongst equals" as the saying goes and it is the cabinet that decides policy
The government must control the confidence of the legislature at all times and will fall if it loses a no confidence vote
The Prime Minister must retain the confidence of his/her party and again will fall if they lose it (as happened last year when PM Theresa May had to resign and Boris Johnson too over)

It is a flexible system with much better check and balances than the USA has with its presidential system

In the UK, there is a healthy disrespect towards government and the PM in particular is not treated with some kind of holy reverence that Americans have for their president

I think the best illustration of this was in 1980 when the Olympics were held in Moscow
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, President Reagan and PM Margaret Thatcher both ordered their respective Olympic teams to stat away.

No American athlete went to the Olympics
Almost the entire British team gave a collection F-You to Thatcher and went

The British government cannot and wouldn't dare put a country off limits (except in wartime) but you try going to Cuba and see how much jail time you get when you come back to the USA.
Click to expand...

Never Mind...
 
Night_Ranger said:
Again, this is mostly baseless and unproven "spin" that the liberal left is known for...
Click to expand...

In your opinion...yada yada yada

Let's see what actual substance you have


Need I remind you, this "agenda" is not grounded in truth. It is grounded in fiction...
Click to expand...

Not much so far

Oh really, what "fiction" is it "grounded" in ?



They seem to forget a lot of history when they call the constitution "vague and ambiguous"...
Click to expand...


Followed by a meaningless diatribe

As I thought, you have nothing to say except regurgitating ignorant prejudice against something you know absolutely nothing about

What "history" ?


The US Constitution ***IS*** vague an ambiguous, that is not even open to debate:


"The linguistic ambiguity of the Constitution opens the law to any number of possible interpretations, especially by the Supreme Court. ... of a rule by a justice, or just new answers to certain legal questions; however, there are more specific means by which to determine constitutional meaning"

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=utk_chanhonoproj




The Vague and Ambiguous US Constitution
"We know from documents and writings of the time that the founders didn’t agree on the Constitution before, during, and after it was written. They couldn’t even agree on whether it should be written, with many fighting against it on principle. The debates were harsh and sometimes violent, nearly tearing the country apart before it had been fully established.
Others only agreed to the Constitution if a Bill of Rights were to be added, while others resisted a Bill of Rights for the very reason they were seen as too specific. It should be noted that the Bill of Rights, the most detailed part of the Constitution, was only added later (ratified years after the Constitution) and was the most strongly contested part. Yet, it too has problems, as Leonard W. Levy explained “Even the seemingly specific injunctions and provisions of the Bill of Rights are vague, requiring much interpretation.”

The Vague and Ambiguous US Constitution | Marmalade



You really don't know much about you own Constitution do you ?
What studies have you ever done into it, beyond high school social studies ?
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
In your opinion...yada yada yada

Let's see what actual substance you have




Not much so far

Oh really, what "fiction" is it "grounded" in ?






Followed by a meaningless diatribe

As I thought, you have nothing to say except regurgitating ignorant prejudice against something you know absolutely nothing about

What "history" ?


The US Constitution ***IS*** vague an ambiguous, that is not even open to debate:


"The linguistic ambiguity of the Constitution opens the law to any number of possible interpretations, especially by the Supreme Court. ... of a rule by a justice, or just new answers to certain legal questions; however, there are more specific means by which to determine constitutional meaning"

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=utk_chanhonoproj




The Vague and Ambiguous US Constitution
"We know from documents and writings of the time that the founders didn’t agree on the Constitution before, during, and after it was written. They couldn’t even agree on whether it should be written, with many fighting against it on principle. The debates were harsh and sometimes violent, nearly tearing the country apart before it had been fully established.
Others only agreed to the Constitution if a Bill of Rights were to be added, while others resisted a Bill of Rights for the very reason they were seen as too specific. It should be noted that the Bill of Rights, the most detailed part of the Constitution, was only added later (ratified years after the Constitution) and was the most strongly contested part. Yet, it too has problems, as Leonard W. Levy explained “Even the seemingly specific injunctions and provisions of the Bill of Rights are vague, requiring much interpretation.”

The Vague and Ambiguous US Constitution | Marmalade



You really don't know much about you own Constitution do you ?
What studies have you ever done into it, beyond high school social studies ?
Click to expand...

It seems more likely that any alleged ambiguities are the result of money and politics than the language; since our supreme law of the land is "object oriented" and not ambiguous in any way.
 
Rich2018 said:
Your surrender is accepted.

Best stick to topics you actually know something about, in future.
Click to expand...

This is why bother...

"Within the United States, there was public support for the boycott. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a nonbinding resolution approving the decision to stay away from Moscow with a vote of 386 in favor and 12 opposed; the U.S. Senate passed a similar measure with a vote of 88 to 4. Technically, the decision of whether or not to send athletes to the Olympic Games does not actually rest with either the President or the Congress, however; it is the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) that makes the final determination in such a situation. In the face of such broad support, however, the USOC expressed its willingness to respect the decision of the U.S. Government with regard to the games."

The Olympic Boycott, 1980

In the USA the Olympic Committee sided with the government although they could have refused and gone while in the UK their Olympic Committee did not side with the government. That also really has nothing to do with the topic of what we were talking about...

The systems of government are essentially the same and literally nothing you said counters that fact.
 
danielpalos said:
It seems more likely that any alleged ambiguities are the result of money and politics than the language; since our supreme law of the land is "object oriented" and not ambiguous in any way.
Click to expand...

Rich has an agenda... couple that with the fact that he doesn't seem to know what the Hell he is talking about and we have a serious problem.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Rich has an agenda... couple that with the fact that he doesn't seem to know what the Hell he is talking about and we have a serious problem.
Click to expand...

You're problem is that you really don't know enough to be talking about constitutional politics at all.


As witnessed by you recent surrender rather than offering anything that can called a "debate".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom