Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, by your understanding, anything not specifically mentioned is prohibited? By nature, nobody can predict the future, especially hundreds of years down the road and cannot address all issues. (When the constitution was written the US was a new country, sparsely populated, with population living in rural environments and working in agriculture. Over the centuries this character changed significantly).
So maybe anything that is not specifically prohibited should be permitted?
That is what the amendment process is there for. If you feel this way, you are free to lobby to have the 10th amendment repealed, as you have a right to your opinion. I will never support any increase in size of the general government.
Absolutley. "Liberal" in 19th century terms means "Capitalist" (in fact, it is still seen this way in Europe. George Bush is a "Liberal" in the Uk, France, Germany, etc...).
How, exactly, are conservatives "Slavers"? This whole thread is basically accusing us of being Anarchists and now were "Slavers"?
Keep having that ideological meltdown....
Conservatism is a state of mind that leads people to defend the status quo and the interests of established power and wealth. Thus in 1775 conservatives were the Loyalists and the liberals were the Patriots. In the early 19th Century the conservatives were the Federalists and those who favored property qualifications for voting and the liberals were the Loco-Focos and Jacksonian Democrats. And so on.
During the War of the Rebellion not all conservatives were slavers but I think it's safe to say all slavers were conservatives.
An old trick of conservatives is saying whenever the conservatives screw-up or are evil that those aren't "real" conservatives. One wonders who in the Hell the real conservatives are.
Conservatism is a state of mind that leads people to defend the status quo and the interests of established power and wealth. Thus in 1775 conservatives were the Loyalists and the liberals were the Patriots. In the early 19th Century the conservatives were the Federalists and those who favored property qualifications for voting and the liberals were the Loco-Focos and Jacksonian Democrats. And so on.
During the War of the Rebellion not all conservatives were slavers but I think it's safe to say all slavers were conservatives.
An old trick of conservatives is saying whenever the conservatives screw-up or are evil that those aren't "real" conservatives. One wonders who in the Hell the real conservatives are.
The "Status Quo" in almost every advanced society was to have greater and greater government until that sociey's collapse. So yeah, the left is today's "conservatives".
Right = Less Government intrusion
Left = More government intrusion
You can play all the fancy word games in the world, but this is how it breaks down. You asked for my opinion, couldn't refute it, so now you want to start yet another incidary cultural "Evil white racist conservatives" scorch fest.
But what else can we expect from the group who elected a man who talks about sharing and hires only tax cheats...
If each state is absolutely independent, who then coordinates between the sates?
Quote:
As long as laws and regulations are consisitant across all states, then it's no problem
For example when deploying a wireless infrastructure, or highways? Second, as we know, taxes are always bad. Why then pay federal tax at all? Maybe I don't want my taxes go to overseas military adventures?
Who says I, or most conservatives, are against the war. Last time I checked, only Ron Paul wanted to get us out, and he wasn't all that "Liberal".
That's fine, but what's the rationale behind your formula? Do you just pick a number out of a hat?
And if you base govt size on population, that means govt will have to grow every year since population is growing. So if you want to shrink government, you will have to reduce population size. Say we expel all the illegals. Does that mean all the legals/citizens left behind will have to stop reproducing (or better yet, start dying out) so that govt will get smaller?
nope, did not pick it out of my hat, Thomas Jefferson said it, and if it is good enough for him, then it is good enough for every other citizen of the USA.
the population might be growing every year, but 1/10% going up each year is alot less than what is in place now.
also remember that this number also includes all military personell.
The 10th Amendment basically prohibits them from doing ANYTHING not listed there or elsewhere in the constitution via the amendment process.
I believe, to put a definite end to the debate over whether the second amendment is an individual's right or a state's right, it is necessary to pass an amendment to further clarify it.
I believe, that the income tax is a bane of our existence, and that the government is not entitled to a share of the fruits of my labors. Therefore, I believe the 16th amendment ought to be repealed, and the worthless scoundrels that passed it, if any still live today, ought to be hanged from the tallest tree that can be found.
You are spinning the limit is well layed out.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.)(Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
The "Status Quo" in almost every advanced society was to have greater and greater government until that sociey's collapse. So yeah, the left is today's "conservatives".
Right = Less Government intrusion
Left = More government intrusion
You can play all the fancy word games in the world, but this is how it breaks down. You asked for my opinion, couldn't refute it, so now you want to start yet another incidary cultural "Evil white racist conservatives" scorch fest.
But what else can we expect from the group who elected a man who talks about sharing and hires only tax cheats...
You have not answered the question of this thread. You are going off on a tangent that's irrelevant to the thread. The question is, if you want less government, what size government is good enough for you? Give us specifics.
And if less government is a good thing, why not no government?
the population might be growing every year, but 1/10% going up each year is alot less than what is in place now.
You cannot control or predict how much population grows by each year. If you did, then we wouldn't need to do a census. So yeah, you pulled that number out of a hat. And also, explain what you mean by 1/10%.
I've heard of reading between the lines, but this is utterly ludicrous. Where did I say we should reinstate slavery? Do you speak plain English?
If you want to stick with the original content of the constitution, then it can only mean you want to reinstate slavery. Unless you are just feigning ignorance, you must have known that the original constitution was amended to abolish slavery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
