Tags: 
Categories: 
This will be the first edition of point/counterpoint where one side of the political spectrum will debate with someone from the other side. In this first edition, Geoff Willis presents the “Point” while Deborah Rosenthal presents the “Counterpoint.”
POINT – The Constitution Protects The Power Of The People FROM the Government, It Does Not Create Power For The Government Over The People
By: Geoffrey Willis
Prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution and the concepts of freedom it established in clear and brilliantly composed language, the purpose of all government had been to create order and control the citizenry. What our founding fathers accomplished was a true and historic break from the past. Instead of government limiting the power of the people, in the American experiment the government’s power was limited for the benefit of the people. This concept was startling and completely new 225 years ago and is unfortunately on the cusp of being lost today where the current administration seeks to dramatically increase the size and power of government at the cost of personal freedom. Freedom is after all, the single most defining concept in American history and a concept that Americans have always been willing to fight and die for.
In a society where personal freedom is of paramount importance and where the government is to have limited power and size, what is the proper role of government? Of the wide range of tasks our government undertakes today only a few are really proper exercises of authority. First, the government has the duty to provide for national defense. Second, the government needs to protect the public’s health. Finally, the government has the duty to provide the public with safety. That’s it – just those three crucial things.
Providing for national defense should be self-evident. Individuals cannot protect the collective from attacks from other countries. When the first band of humans invaded another band of humans the need for national security was clear. Most of the debate on this governmental duty revolves around how much and how big the national defense structure needs to be, but that is a discussion for another day.
Providing for the public health has nothing to do with which doctor you can go to or whether insurance has a single pay option. The “public health” means basic sanitation and a clean environment in which to live. Sewers, trash, and clean water all must be provided for the common good and the common benefit. Again, the debate here can be over how far the tent of public health stretches (environmental regulations?) but there is very little debate over whether providing these services is an appropriate role for government.
Finally, the government needs to provide safety for the public. The Wild West showed that life without law enforcement didn’t really work very well, nor did life with no organized fire protection. Building safety is another valued and appropriate government function.
That is it. Nothing more must be provided by the government, in fact even these three categories of service should always be implemented with a single question in mind, “is the government unjustly limiting the power of the people?”
Obviously there are quite a few services currently provided missing from this list. Keep in mind, you are promised the right of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” People talk about “entitlements” but that is a terrible misnomer. There is no right retirement payments, no right to unemployment payments, no right to medical care, no right to a free education and no right to payment for not working. NO ONE is “entitled” to ANY of these things.
However, because America really is a kind and gentle country we have voluntarily decided to give up a little of our personal freedom to provide for those in need. While I personally think that the amazing philanthropic spirit that is really unique to America (http://www.barclayswealth.com/Images/Global-Giving-the-Culture-of-Philanthropy.pdf) can effectively handle virtually all of these needs and can do it more cost effectively than government, I have no problem with small government programs of last resort that can act as a safety net for those whose needs are not adequately met by private help. I also think free and open public education is also universally valuable and one of the first things that should be supported for the common good.
Unfortunately, it seems like the United States has become a place where people feel that they are “owed” by the government and have a “right” to these things that they are owed. Today in America things have gotten so far out of control that a majority of Americans take more out of the government than they put into it. In other words, more than 50% of Americans receive more benefit from the government than they pay in ANY form of taxes or payments TO the government. (U.S. News) The top 1% of wage earners, currently vilified by President Obama as “needing to pay their share” currently pay 37% of all federal income taxes. (Tax basics) As one former President famously said
“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates…. [A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits.”
Which conservative President made that remark? John F. Kennedy in 1963. (You’ll Never Guess)
Even more fundamental to currently faltering economy than the way that the tax burden is allocated is the insane way in which the United States currently does its budget. I have five teenagers and one of the first economic lessons I teach them is how to make a budget. A key concept that they easily grasp is that you cannot spend more money than you bring in. Oh, if only our government would grasp that concept so easily.
Historically the United State had only gone into deficit spending to cover the costs of wars. Following each war the U.S. would pay off its debt and continue along debt free until the next war came along. That all ended with the great depression when FDR and his new deal dramatically expanded the course and scope of government. FDR’s rapid expansion of government and government spending may well have extended the great depression (Thinking Right), but the expansion of deficit spending undertaken by FDR is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the increase in the federal budget deficit that has occurred under President Obama. The United States has incurred nearly a third of its TOTAL DEBT over the past 236 years during the Obama Presidency. (Adelphi)
One of the key problems is that there is NO evaluation of financial priorities undertaken against the backdrop of projected national income. Do we want to spend taxpayer money protecting fairy shrimp (we spend lots of federal money doing this) or providing nutritional guidance to teenage moms? You can argue over which is more deserving and how we should allocate our limited and finite tax money – the problem is we simply don’t have this discussion at all and instead want to spend money on everything causing us to spend more than taxes bring in.
What do we need to do to return to a country where the government’s powers are limited to protect the people instead of a country where the government limits the power of the individual? First, we need to remember our constitutional roots. Government should be limited to its primary functions. Second, we need to return to simple accounting fundamentals and actually spend no more than we take in – in fact for a while we may actually have to pay off the national credit card and spend less than we take in. Third, we need to have a rational tax allocation process where everyone pays their fair share and pulls their own weight. Finally, we need to figure out how to talk to one another. One of the real problems in the U.S. today is that the sources of information are so quickly disseminated that many of the checks and balances on truth and honesty are under attack and the simple concept of civility is viewed as a luxury instead of as a cornerstone to decent human behavior.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Counterpoint – The Constitution Is An Ever Evolving Document
By: Deborah Rosenthal
When a conservative libertarian like Mr. Willis starts appealing to our constitutional roots, grab your history books and prepare for a bumpy ride. First, he tends to get his historical facts wrong, or at least out of context. President Kennedy, for instance, was speaking about lowering the top marginal tax rate from over 90% to a measly 87%, compared to 35% today. The powers of the federal government were derived from the people and, in the Bill of Rights, they were limited for the benefit of the individual. Private philanthropy has never taken up the slack conservatives want to give it; poor houses and Potters fields were features of our earliest communities.
Mr. Willis also indulges in some impressive rhetorical sleight of hand. He starts by stating that American democracy was intended to protect personal freedom, and then slides effortlessly to assert that our current federal government is exceeding its proper, i.e. constitutional, exercise of authority. When he speaks of voluntarily giving up a little personal freedom to provide for those in need, it is clear that he is not referring to personal rights, he is referring to tax dollars, his tax dollars. Personal freedom and tax rates may be related, but low taxes are not the purpose of democracy.
When describing a constitutional democracy, words make a difference. Mr. Willis’ acknowledgment of a government obligation to protect public health is actually based on a revealing misquote. The Constitution begins by stating, unequivocally, that its purpose is “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty ..” Public health is certainly part of the general welfare, but doesn’t begin to define the full scope of this remarkably elastic phrase. Far from locking us into the eighteenth century, the true genius of the Constitution is that it gave our country the freedom to grow and change without abandoning our shared principles.
The conservative appeal to constitutional roots suffers from the same factual defects as its appeal to history. Even without the regular political revolutions recommended by Thomas Jefferson, American democracy has reinvented itself regularly. Congress was always empowered to regulate commerce, and by the 1830s it took the banking system national. In the 1860s, civil rights became a national concern. Between the 1870s and 1920s, we established the federal courts as the supreme arbiters of personal and corporate rights, and legally extended the ballot to women and racial minorities. In the 1930s, the federal government offered a helping hand to the deserving poor and, by the 1960s, we included medical care for the elderly in our national safety net. We may have argued about the propriety of these actions ever since, but there is no question they all fall within the definition of “general welfare.”
As we have reinvented ourselves to meet new challenges, the question is no longer what “is” the proper role of government, but what do we want our government to be? Judging by the last 50 years, the answer seems clear. We do not want the severely limited, even cramped, federal government postulated by libertarians or conservatives. We want a federal government that protects us from external, domestic, or even personal, harm. We want a federal government that does the things that are too big for any individual state, and we want a bench of national standards instead of a patchwork of state regulation. The federal government expanded its reach in the 1930s and 1960s, not for nefarious reasons, but because we wanted a federal government that provided for the well-being of its most vulnerable citizens and helped all of us as we moved toward an uncertain old age.
The fact that Mr. Willis misstates history does mean that he is always wrong. I am not a disciple of Samuelson economics, who ignores deficit spending as irrelevant to our national well-being. Like most of us, I believe in paying our bills, unless there are important, unusual reasons to go into debt. Social Security and Medicare don’t qualify as extraordinary cases and we need to have a federal budget that accommodates these programs, as well as others. I agree with Mr. Willis that we should adopt a realistic budget that covers our financial obligations and, hopefully, leaves a little left over for the inevitable rainy day. That’s what I do at home, and I expect no less of my country’s financial managers.
What, Mr. Willis asks, do we do? He asks for national discussion about priorities, the role of government, and our national financial capacity, but he presupposes its result. He assumes we will choose a federal government that withdraws to a vision of limited federal government that never existed, even for the founding fathers, and withdraws the much vaunted safety net of the 1930’s and 1960’s from all but the most demonstrably deserving poor. He assumes that Social Security and Medicare are nothing but voluntary charity in wolves’ clothing. I do not confuse liberty with tax rates, nor do I assume that public dollars can never be spent for the good of many individuals.
Before we can talk productively, we need to stop the blame game that seems to consume political discourse today . I am no more eager to give up my home mortgage deduction than retirees are willing to see cuts in Social Security. Why should the jobless be blamed for wanting extended unemployment benefits when they see hedge fund managers with multi-million dollar bonuses and failed bank executives with golden parachutes? Why should the working poor see their children go without health care, and then hear themselves criticized for earning too little to pay federal taxes? Why should the elderly forego unneeded Medicare or Social Security payments, if they think the money will be wasted on the shiftless? Instead of pointing fingers at each other, 99% versus 1% or 47% versus 53%, we need to recognize that progress is based on mutual respect and shared goals, never on blame. Sacrifices need to be shared across the body politic, or they just feel punitive.
So, in addition to recognizing that we all suffer from myopia when our own interests are at stake, we need some national consensus about what is a reasonable level for federal taxes, recognizing that we have widely varying amounts of disposable income and different state, local and family demands. Is it fair to pay 20% of gross income for federal services? 30%? 70% ? 95%? The only agreement seems to be that “we” pay too much and “they” pay too little. This badly needs to change if we are to heal our national divisions. We need to recognize that the federal government provides value for our taxes, even if occasionally, or even frequently, it seems as inefficient as an out-of-date battleship.
Then, and Mr. Willis is again right about this, we need to have a real national discussion about priorities. We need to stop paying for dubious foreign military adventures off the balance sheet, as though we aren’t spending real money if it isn’t in the budget. In common parlance, we need to stop pretending we can have both guns and butter, without paying for either. We need to take on medical care and costs as questions of national self-interest, not because medical care is a constitutional right, but because our current system is wasteful of both lives and money. A free public education may not be listed in the Constitution, but it was one of the defining institutions of early America, and the only way to ensure a united, literate and employable citizenry. There may need to be painful choices between prisons and schools, roads and arts, impoverished children and needy retirees, but we must recognize them as choices that define our 21st century definition of the general welfare, not a return to some mythical dream of limited government.
So, where does that leave us? Mr. Willis and I agree about the genius of American democracy. We agree about the need for rational civil discourse, and the benefits of adopting a realistic budget and paying our national bills. We disagree about the proper role of the federal government in promoting the general welfare, though I suspect a lot of our disagreement is more theoretical than practical. We may disagree about reasonable tax levels, though I’m not sure, because most discussion never gets beyond “too much-too little” or “come back when there’s no more waste and inefficiency.” Most importantly, though, and the reason I have some hope, is that we both agree that all Americans need to work together and pay their fair share for the common good.
I find it interesting that you threw out a quote from John F. Kennedy… Who signed executive order 11110, which was to do away with the Federal Reserve Bank and its usury system… Who was assassinated just months after signing it… The Federal Reserve Bank has corrupted the government and the politicians, and has enslaved this Nation and the people to a debt…. The government was established to be run after the example of The Lord Jesus Christ who was lead by the spirit of God to become a servant for the people… To free them from the tyrannical rule of tyrants… Which lord their ego of self to enslave them to their system of governing, which is controlled by a economic usury system, which is Controled by a corrupt political system, and is kept in line by an apostate religious system… Christ came to redeem them from this system of governing… To redeem the people back to God in His spirit… To rule in them and through them… To bring His kingdom to the world in His Spirit… Christ in you the hope of glory…. Our founding fathers knew this… They also knew that the author and finisher of all history would be with them and in them to make this happen… This is how a rag tag bunch of men defeated the greatest military power in that day and time… To establish the United States of America… (Ame- my people…rica- I have found) those that are in Christ to establish His kingdom to the world… In the freedom and Liberty to those who are in His Spirit…, Amen!!!
I don’t think our TROLL ever read the Constitution, at least notthe Preamble which you show above . We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more peerfct Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.What about WELFARE of the people don’t reich-wingersnot get? With them too often, it’s I’ve got MINE, to hell witheveryone else! or as the Dick Cheney would say simpler, Fuckyou!
The difference here is that, the reich-wingers you so metaphorically refer to, earned theirs. It wasn’t handed to them from a Gub’mint mandate that doesn’t exist.
Deborah,
Great counterpoint. Few from the Left can articulate a liberal position as well as you do. When you and Geoff finish with the broad brush strokes, and we hope you have, perhaps you might start with specifics on what your views are on, and proposed solutions with respect to (i) appropriate immigration standards and/or quotas going forward, (ii) what to do with the immigrants who entered the US illegally and have remained here, and
(Iii) the role of state and federal government with respect to providing services for immigrants and funding immigration related costs.
Thanks for the comment Sam. I have known Deborah for twenty years and have always found her to be frustratingly articulate and reasonable for someone who is always wrong*. (*Joking sarcasm font)
Our founding fathers argued vehemently when forming the Constitution, i.e. forming the federal centralized government. There were two main arguments or fears. First, each state wanted to maintain its autonomy and wanted to maintain its right to govern itself.
Secondly, they were fearful that any federal or centralized government they formed would eventually become too big and too powerful, therefore naturally corrupt and controlling, taking away the very individual freedoms and liberties that were just fought for from England.
The small states wanted to make sure they had adequate representation so they wouldn’t be swallowed up by the larger states. The larger states wanted to make sure they had adequate control because of their size. Genuine concerns on both sides. Of course, we know that it was eventually settled upon by forming a lower and upper house – the House of Representatives and the Senate.
All states, however, were concerned about safeguarding themselves from an overpowering federal government. The arguments were fewer when discussing how to accomplish this. All states definitely wanted to secure limiting the growth of the federal government. Thus, you will find that the Constitution is one of negative liberties and/or stated in another way enumerates the powers and rights of each branch of government.
Forming three branches of government was also a safeguard to an all-powerful centralized government. Each branch had its separate powers, rights and duties, which meant one branch could not infringe upon another. As such, these branches were not intended as equal branches. The Legislative branch having the most duties and being closest to representing the states and the people were to weight most heavily. The Judicial branch having the least of duties was to weight least.
Then still, another safeguard against an all-powerful centralized government was the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights limits and restricts what the federal government can or cannot do to the individual or to the states, i.e. mainly that the federal government cannot interfere with the individual’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As far as the phrase in the Constitution (the Preamble), Ms. Rosenthal quotes as evidence that our founding fathers intended the Constitution to be elastic or an ever-evolving document, she misinterprets. First of all, that was an introductory statement to what the following articles and sections would contain. If our founding fathers truly desired an evolving document as she believes, Article V outlining the amendment requirements would not be so difficult to attain. In fact, in the Declaration of Independence it states, “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” I question the establishment of most of our federal administrative agencies; did they not skirt the task of an amendment to the Constitution?
Furthermore, the phrase she happily states makes the Constitution amazingly elastic, “to promote the general welfare,” is just that, to promote not provide. There is a world of difference between promote and provide. To promote is what we do as parents or teachers of our children, we provide them with the tools and discipline and encouragement, but we let them do it on their own or find their own way. In other words we try to open the way for them, we show them the vast world of possibilities, of what they can achieve, but we don’t do it or provide it for them. We know that’s the best for them. Those truly in need were much more minimal before our government got involved and they were taken care of more often than not by the community. The poor, poverty, crime and disasters will always exist. But still, the role of the government is to promote, not provide.
Ms. Rosenthal goes on to state that “far from locking us into the eighteenth century, the true genius of the Constitution is that it gave our country the freedom to grow and change without abandoning our shared principles.” Notice she uses the word “grow.” Remember, our founding fathers did not want the federal government to grow. They wanted the federal government to be controlled, limited and restricted so the peoples’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness could be secured in perpetuity. All of the eighteenth century “trappings” our founding fathers codified in the Constitution to keep the federal government in check were put there to be unshakeable. This is the law of the Constitution and should be interpreted as such, as it is clearly stated. The best way to govern a free people is the Constitution that was formed in the eighteenth century bar none. Fundamentally changing it is not wise for the common man.
Our deviation from these “trappings” is what’s causing the problems our country is now facing. Our federal government has over stepped its bounds and have grown so large and controlling. The people of the United States of America are losing their freedom and liberties to an oppressive federal government. States and the people are becoming more and more subject to them. I suspect every year, there is an unprecedented number of new laws. With each new law, there seems to be more laws that are laid on it. “National standards instead of a patchwork of state regulation” is exactly the opposite of our founding fathers’ vision especially when it came to the general welfare.
Moreover, today we find the clear separation of each branch of government is seriously blurred. The Executive branch is infringing on the Legislative branch. The Judicial branch is infringing on the Legislative branch. The Judicial and Executive branches have become more powerful than the Legislative branch. Not only is the federal government interfering with States’ rights, it is failing in one of its primary duties of protecting its citizens from invasion without as well as from within.
The people of the United States have had enough. Redistribution of wealth is forced charity and is enslavement. You bet Mr. Willis is talking about his taxes; he doesn’t want to become a slave to the government which is corrupt and wasteful and lacks good stewardship of his hard earned money he desires for his family. The silent majority is standing up. The people are reclaiming their power as the Constitution begins with the infamous words no other government in world history has used, “WE THE PEOPLE.” It would behoove Ms. Rosenthal to open her eyes to what she is so pridefully exclaiming, that she is not concerned about her taxes.
Oh My!!! do you have to get so angry that profanity wins oitvcivilrey? Yes the reich wing troll using the sock puppet handle joe lib does do that don’t he?to witWhy the fuck would I wanna be a fucking Lib take a better look at the WHOLE PICTURE stop the blamegame and fix the problem. Like the blame game you tried in your previous post?I am a United States Citizen So are all of us here, so what is your real point?born andraised here. required reading when I was in school was the USCONSTITUTION my homework was to write a report on what theconstitution stood for. Well today I can tell you what it doesn’tstand for STUPIDITY,BLINDNESS,IGNORANCE, the MAIN memes of the reich wing idiots like Glenn Beck, Sean hannity, rush limbaugh, Bill o’Rielly, Ann coulter, Michelle malkin, ET AL and most importantly itdoes not stand for taking americans rights away for the benefit ofanyone especially the GOVERNMENT! Like George W Bush did at the behest of Richard Cheney in their illegal power grab? I am proud to be an american withmy own choice, my own voice,and rights that protect me as anamerican. Do you really want to give up those rights to supportgovernment control just because you think our currentadministration is not liing (Lying)to you? Get educated on the real issuestoday in america. )America)learn the values our constitution was created toprotect. In other words Wake up and Smell the coffee there is nodoubt we need reform in the country all the way around but how wego about reforming is most important, stop the criticizing andstart doing the right thing the right way, and if you dont knowwhat the right way is then educate yourself somemore. Research foryourself, find your answers the old fashion way, get off your assand go out and talk to the people all of the people not just yourgroup, find out what the rest think, and stop blaming those whoalready have. Damn your criticism fits the faux news, AM hate radio listening, teabaggin’ movement like a glove (COMMENTS IN BOLD BY WNI)
For several days since reading Deborah’s counterpoint I have been contemplating how to best address both Geoff’s Point and her Counter-point.
Quickly reading what each wrote I found their “overall” positions seemingly fell into what was once considered the philosophical difference between the democrats and the republicans. When I was young and under the FDR Administration people referred to that difference as, “democrats are for the common man and the republicans represent the rich”.
But as I got a little older, and hopefully a little wiser, the main difference I observed could better be expressed as, “The democrats believe in a strong central government and the republicans believe in State’s Rights.” It is this difference that I believe is most evident in the expressed Point and Counter-point.
So my thoughts revolved about how to best challenge both positions as I saw problems with what each of them had set-forth in their argument.
When I sat down to start writing this morning I again read the Point, Counter-point and all of the comments that had been posted. The last comment was written by Robert and I found he had addressed most of the points I had been mulling around in my mind and said them much better than I ever could. It would be redundant for me to reiterate them here.
I thank you Robert for a very well thought out and elegantly written response as set-forth in your comments. You saved me a lot of time and, I believe, given readers of this blog site a lot to think about.
Great topic! Thanks to both Geoffrey and Deborah. Let me first comment on “Point” – it’s easier.
1. I would like to have seen better definition of “government”, i.e. a clearer distiction by the writer when he was addressing the federal and when he was addressing the states (and their subdivisions). I assume he referred mostly to the federal government, in which case I disagree with the author on several points. The U.S. Constitution does NOT delegate to the United States powers “to protect the public’s health” or to “provide safety to the public” in terms of fire protection, building safety, sanitation, water supply and law enforcement, unless the crime is treason, piracy or counterfeiting. In addition to the horizontal separation of powers (three branches), our Founders established a vertical separation of powers – federalism (shared powers) – as another dimension of separation to be an additional safeguard for the liberties of the people. Each level was to have different spheres of influence over different “objects”, as the Founders called them, with little to no redundant overlap and no usurpation; and each level was to be a check on the other, as each of the three branches were to check and balance the other two.
For both Geoffrey and Deborah, I call to witness the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, who was a lot smarter than I about federalism and the Doctrine of Enumerated Powers. Federalist #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce… The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” That Doctrine of Enumerated Powers is summarized nicely in the Tenth Amendment, keystone of the Bill of Rights: “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.”
2. Geoffrey is correct that “entitlements” (government handouts) are not rights. To whatever extent that we agree “to give up a little” to establish “a safety net for those whose needs are not adequately met by private help”, that decision belongs at the local level.
3. Again, the question is “to spend taxpayer money protecting fairy shrimp or providing nutritional guadance to teenage moms” may be a valid question. But it is a state and local one, not federal. I know, I know… I am hearing the shouts about all the Supreme Court opinions about “interstate commerce”, “general welfare”, “necessary and proper” and “Incorporation Doctrine”. Opinions are opinions. The Constitution is clear. And we have prime source documentation and other “case law” much nearer in time to the source as precedent to the contrary. More on this later.
4. Regarding “a national tax allocation process where everyone pays their fair share…”, the question is not “why are my taxes higher than yours?”, as the demagogues and Marxists instigate; the question is “why are everybody’s taxes so high?” Limited government at all levels, especially the federal where most programs are unconstitutional, solves the real problem of government spending, and the tax reduction takes care of itself.
5. “We need to talk to each other” – about the clear words in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and about the other prolific written prime source words of our Founders to inform and guide the discussion. Insrtead, all we hear is Republicans and Democrats telling us how bad the other party is. The Father of Our Country, George Washington, warned us in his Farewell Address about “the baneful effects of the spirit of party”. We know, President Washington, we know! We didn’t listen to you.
Now to comment on “Counterpoint”.
I began writing comments, beginning with Deborah’s title, and after a couple hours I gave up. There are just too many issues here to deal with in one sitting. Geoffrey and Deborah, can we agree on just one thing? Please answer this simple question: Do you believe in the God of the Bible? I’ll check back in a day or two.
Great post – welcome to Thinking Right and please come back often. In answer to your question, my belief in the God of the Bible guides my actions everyday.
Deborah Rosenthal
Just when was it that you were taught that we are a democracy? The words “democracy” and “democrat” do not appear in our constitution. In fact, the sequence of letters “demo” do not appear in the constitution. We happen to have been formed as a “republic.”
Ralph
She wasn’t taught that. She knows it perfectly well. She was just hoping the rest of us don’t know it.
When I was still a child I already knew, from reading about Karl Hess in a coffee table book at my grandmother’s house, that conservatives believe people are basically lazy and need an autocratic economy to get them out of bed and doing good things. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that people are basically stupid and require an intellectual elite to run their lives for them. Of the two, Mr. Hess believed that the latter was much more prone to tyranny and thus far more evil. I concur. And so, having read these two ‘arguments’ I was something less than shocked to hear D. Rosenthal make out her platform. But Mr. Willis, as a self-described ‘conservative libertarian’ fizzles on the pad. If there is a single ‘Constitutional Flaw’ it is the absence of a prohibition against the privatization of our money system. THE FEDERAL RESERVE, misnamed on purpose by Paul Warburg for its dual deceptive connotations – (1. It is about as Federal as Federal Express and 2. It holds no reserves.) The current state of our economy is a direct result of this supreme criminal conspiracy of all times and has been since 1913. The laughable state of our Federal regulatory agencies is a direct extension of the Globalist Plutocracy created by the FED wherein the top executives of the corporations that are supposed to be being policed by these agencies take turns running them. This is the case with Wall Street & the SEC. This is the case with the chemical cartels (Monsanto et al.) and the FDA and the AMA. The list goes on and on. The liberties and freedoms that once defined this nation have been deliberately stripped away in an ocean of debt for no other reason than that under our current monetary system the federal government can issue its own Treasury Bonds (at interest that is then saddled to the back of the American taxpayer in perpetuity) but not its own Treasury Notes (without interest.) It is absurd. It is outrageous. And it is allowing a small, unaccountable cabal of Globalists (the Khazarian European Financial Elite to be specific) to take over not just the USA but the whole planet. Neo-Bolshevik Sen. Bernie Sanders(Socialist/Vermont)wants to amend our Federal Constitution to limit the ability of the super rich to purchase our campaigns and thus our candidates. Wouldn’t it be wiser to amend the Constitution so as to prohibit the privatization of our monetary system for now and all times? Mr. Willis seems to think his tax dollars are being taken from him at gunpoint to support hoards of bums and loafers. The truth is the vast majority of those tax dollars are going to the Uber Rich in what amounts to interest payments on loans to the Federal government comprised of fiat monies that were created out of thin air with the equivalent of table crumbs left over for social programs and small matters like our national defense – which is a joke anyway since all the wars we have been fighting these past many years have been to the exclusive benefit of Israeli national security, not our own. Iran is next. Today America is in the hands of treasonous, pimped-out, prostitute ‘leaders’ who puppet for Israel and the pro-Zionist, Internationalist financial elite while allowing our outrageously porous southern border to be overrun daily with ‘workers’ from the increasingly Red ‘democracies’ of Central and South America. One day soon we shall awake to find ourselves saturated with the foot soldiers of a new ‘worker’s revolution.’ Mr. Willis and his ilk will blame the ‘liberal’ policies of Zionist mouthpieces like D. Rosenthal when it will actually be the fault of the so-called ‘American Right’ for failing so miserably to think its way through the relentless propaganda of the Jewish controlled American media and finally dare to call a spade a spade. It makes me want to f**king puke!
Well, it’s been about ten days since my post. Thanks, Goeffrey for your response. I never got an answer to my question from Deborah. I’ll take her non-response as a “no”. So all the arguments that I need to make against her “Counterpoint” can be summed up below.
There are two, and only two, fundamental world views. Either the God of the Bible IS, or He IS NOT. I contend that all other world views and political philosophies flow from one or the other.
God of the Bible IS. Therefore, the world view of America’s Founders is valid, and the other world view is invalid.
Therefore the “Point” is more correct than the “Counterpoint”. Here’s why.
An old Chinese proverb says “Before you tear down a wall, you better learn why it was built.”
The biblical world view of our Founders is that God loves us and wants us to live in freedom. (Gal. 5:1) But man has a sin nature. Therefore, civil government is needed to restrain the exercise of sin. However, men in government have the same sin nature as the rest of us. Therefore, government – particularly the federal government – must be limited. James Madison (Father of the Constitution) summed up this dilemma best in “The Federalist” #51: “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
God of the Bible IS. He created us. Our rights come form Him. The sole purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given rights – from other men both in and out of government. We are told these things at the beginning of our country’s birth certificate – the Declaration of Independence (placed at the beginning of the U.S. Code on Jan. 3, 2007 under the heading “The Organic Laws of the United States of America”).
Our Founders laid the foundation of our government structures on the principles of the Declaration, and organized the powers of the federal government in a form that LIMITS federal powers to those enumerated in the Constitution (particularly Article I, Section 8), because as Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man; but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
So the “Point” – The Constitution Protects The Power Of The People FROM the Government, It Does Not Create Power For The Government Over The People – is more correct than the “Counterpoint” – The Constitution Is An Ever Evolving Document – because, though technology changes, the sin nature of man, and those Declaration principles, are unchanging. It is precisely because of the awesome changes in technology, that today give the federal government capabilities to know, to control, and to destroy that would boggle the mind of even scientist Ben Franklin, that it is more important today to LIMIT the powers and reach of the fedgov than it was in 1787. Those chains must be re-secured!
What is flawed is not our citotstunion, it is Obama! It still amazes me that a man who has learned from Saul Alinski (Marxist extraordinaire), hung around with Bill Ayers, went to Wright’s church for 20 years, was also friends with Tony Rezko, would be running for president of this country! There’s probably a lot more that hasn’t come out on the Marxist Obama, but I doubt it would matter because people aren’t listening. They want him as president because he’s Black and promises change. What kind of change? Who cares? Change of any kind is good enough for them!It boggles the mind!
An “evolving” document? No. Our constitution is what it is. If we’d stick to it, everything would be just fine.
Do you suppose had the conservative followed the liberals point he or she would have included assumptions on why a liberal would think the way they do? The motive behind his beliefs, “he is referring to tax dollars, his tax dollars”.
Not relevant to proving or disproving a conclusion, generally how one reaches a conclusion does not determine if it is a fact or not. If tax dollars did in fact translate into giving up personal freedom,
greed or moral grounds has no relevant influence on ones personal freedom.
So here is the insult, by implying the reasoning behind ones conclusion is corrupt, bad thus untrue and the reasoning behind your conclusion is moral, good thus true.
Effective In creating opinions,
Useless in providing facts.
Just as she assume to know how her conservative counterpart thinks and reaches certain conclusions so she does with the founders. I do not intend to point out all the places an assumption is used, just the first one.
“to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
” Public health is certainly part of the general welfare”
“We may have argued about the propriety of these actions ever since, but there is no question they all fall within the definition of “general welfare”
No where in this section does the term general welfare have any association with, been directed at, have any qualifiers or implied connection with or is referring to citizens.
The purpose is to form a “union” not a civil government, or society. The states was where laws and regulations that were written
for men to follow and not break. Moral codes for structuring society and the body that governs it community.
The constitution creates the structure on which the union, consisting of the states, its citizens and the entity created by the union governs by.
Plato’s Republic detailed how states have their own character traits just like individual men. Like men there is a need to govern them.
The bill of rights and that which follows are laws written for states to follow or break. Although any member of the union can violate these laws, most have state laws that cover some act that is carried out when breaking federal law.
As citizens the federal task is to protect life liberty and pursuit of happiness that a state can threaten with laws only written for men.
As a state, and union members federal task is to protect, oversee disputes between states, keep united, OVERSEE GENERAL WELFARE
You can actually just lookup the internet, one particular can look for a terrific present of specifics here. Mason then signed with Tulsa of the Continental Basketball Association. While in the military, Elizabeth lived in Germany and Italy for over five years, total. The eyepieces are useful when it comes to magnification. Young people need to look great, should we possibly not? These kinds of sunglasses provide you with splendor plus basic design and style located at extraordinary price tags. christian louboutin outlet
EVERY successive government over the past 40 years has come to this
exact same spot. I value that too.If you approach me nicely i’m so much more less defensive and willing to see how i can assist you
in a pleasant manner, and will listen to you and voice
your concerns. maravilla “, afirma Jeff Pirard, uno de los responsables del instrumento por parte de ESO. This decision was based on the 2010 and 2011 forensic audits of the PSSA tests, which the state now apparently had in its possession, but which they still had not released to the public. Not that I could think of a reason why someone would even need to use a floppy disc in an age of multi gigabyte memory cards and usb drives.
Boy talk about reaching for a story line. For the layman, being
armed with good health information is always a good start towards leading a normal life in spite of these problems.
I get that they trust Oprah and maybe it was even theraputic for them
to sit and talk about Whitney and their memories etc.
.but why does it then in turn have to be televised?
Arizona moved ahead of USC for third place. Point being….
If you are a freelancer then legally you are a “Sole Proprietor” or “Independent Contractor.
” If you and a friend decide to go into business
together you may form a partnership. Other early fancies in
the feature include Tony Gollan ’s consistent Sequalo mare Cariad ($7 Luxbet ), local
six-year-old The Sixties ($8.50 Luxbet ) coming off a second to Mr Armstrong
and the Brian Smith -trained #6 General Purple ($9.50 Luxbet
) who was another first-up winner over 1200-metres at the Farm from Feb 11.
She blathered on about right wing extremism
being responsible for the shootings. 3.) Heute habe ich
einen Schulfreund von Juma getroffen, der hat mir erzählt, dass er und ein paar Schulfreunde einen Hilfskreis
eingerichtet haben und sich einmal im Monat treffen, wo
sie Geld sammeln und dann gemeinsam überlegen, an wen das Geld geht um die Schulgebühren zu zahlen.
The 50-something James has rheumatoid arthritis.
Does this sound outlandish? I have a daughter ? It’s not ridicule to call him
a hoarder. Hunt’s mystery is set in Salt Lake City in 1930 and based on a … Yes, it’s a butterfly-shaped vibrator thing that you strap to yourself like some very quirky pants.