NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[TexanOkie]

He he, I like Steele. He has caused the GOP more heart burn, lost time, wasted effort, and off target messaging than anything the democrats could have done to counter them. To top it off, the GOP is more caught up in political correctness than any other organization in history!

The GOP finds itself incapable of firing a bumbling incompetent because he is black and it might "look bad". So they find themselves in the ultimate politically correct actions they can muster, which is wasting time building fund raising mechanisms around him (that waste time) and wasting political opportunity by not being focused or on message resulting in fewer seats in the house and senate than they should gain.

PRICELESS!

You are absolutely correct. Which is why it completely astounds me that the Democrats aren't way more successful than they are currently (they're getting defensive and digging up personal dirt for upcoming midterms, even, rather than focusing on their strengths and actual policy and leadership weaknesses within the GOP). It would be incredibly easy, at least theoretically, to establish a generation of Democratic control similar to FDR's New Deal folks.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Your being silly.

Your own article quotes the following things. Hardly a resounding "Obama's war of choosing" argument.


QUOTE
Apart from the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney laid the outlines for the Afghanistan occupation and then implemented it, apart from the fact that Republican Party leaders cheered on Obama's escalation of the conflict, and apart from the fact that the primary support for maintaining a massive and open-ended occupation in Congress is coming from GOP members—two-thirds of Democrats in the House voted Thursday for amendments to a supplemental funding bill that called for development of an exit strategy—Steele's argument is sound.
...
And, while Bush may have created the mess, it can reasonably be argued that the current president's moves to expand the occupation—with a troop surge and substantial increases in military spending on a mission that can't seem to get traction—have made the current character of the conflict "a war of Obama's choosing."

Unfortunately for Steele, it is also a war of the neoconservative elite's choosing, and that elite still holds a lot of sway within the Republican Party and on its pundit periphery.

QUOTE

 

[ofos]

that elite still holds a lot of sway within the Republican Party and on its pundit periphery.

pundit periphery? Not nattering nabobs of negativism? Shades of William Safire and Spiro T. Agnew.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

pundit periphery? Not nattering nabobs of negativism? Shades of William Safire and Spiro T. Agnew.

Not my quote.

That was from TO's post about "proof that steele was right" article from The Nation, authored by John Nichols.

 

[imaplanner]

On top of that, several Republicans actually helping confirm Elena Kagan by comapring her views to her mentor and very respectable justice T. Marshall.

The attacking of Marshall was utterly disgusting, especially given that the repubs who did so could not come up with any cases or positions to justify their insistance that he was a terrible, activist judge. That was a not so sly attempt by many republicans to inject the politics of racial resentment into the November elections.

 

[TexanOkie]

Your being silly.

Your own article quotes the following things. Hardly a resounding "Obama's war of choosing" argument.


QUOTE
Apart from the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney laid the outlines for the Afghanistan occupation and then implemented it, apart from the fact that Republican Party leaders cheered on Obama's escalation of the conflict, and apart from the fact that the primary support for maintaining a massive and open-ended occupation in Congress is coming from GOP members—two-thirds of Democrats in the House voted Thursday for amendments to a supplemental funding bill that called for development of an exit strategy—Steele's argument is sound.
...
And, while Bush may have created the mess, it can reasonably be argued that the current president's moves to expand the occupation—with a troop surge and substantial increases in military spending on a mission that can't seem to get traction—have made the current character of the conflict "a war of Obama's choosing."

Unfortunately for Steele, it is also a war of the neoconservative elite's choosing, and that elite still holds a lot of sway within the Republican Party and on its pundit periphery.

QUOTE

The following paragraph is in the middle of your muddled quotation (immediately before the phrase "Unfortunately for Steele...", the last sentence you quoted above):

As a candidate, Obama was being "too cute by half" when he framed the fantasy that Iraq was a bad war while Afghanistan was a good one.

And, while Bush may have created the mess, it can reasonably be argued that the current president's moves to expand the occupation—with a troop surge and substantial increases in military spending on a mission that can't seem to get traction—have made the current character of the conflict "a war of Obama's choosing."

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Both of these statements are yours. In the first, you say it is ok that Nixon increased troop levels, engaged in strategy, and worked to stand up the ARVN in the Vietnam conflict. Fair enough.

Yes and no (about Nixon and Vietnam, not your second sentence). Nixon continued the war effort, even introduced new strategies and expanding the war into Laos and Cambodia, but his goal was to start withdrawing troops and turning over South Vietnam's defenses to the ARVN. He started phased withdrawals of US troops within his first year of election. Nixon never pushed (strategically) for a US/South Vietnamese victory in the war.

Now in this quote, you are saying exactly the opposite. As a note, you can't further increase the manpower or technological edge without increasing costs. Exactly what Nixon did. Now that Obama is doing EXACTLY the same thing, its not OK. Pick which one it is, you can't have it both ways. Nixon got no traction in Vietnam.

Nixon had the vast majority of troops out in 1971. Without US backing, the South Vietnamese could not beat the NVA. In 1975, the US refused to back the ARVN and the south fell to the NVA. In effect the same situation you state with Obama is likely to happen without a multi decade investment in time as what happened to Nixon.

And, while Bush may have created the mess, it can reasonably be argued that the current president's moves to expand the occupation—with a troop surge and substantial increases in military spending on a mission that can't seem to get traction—have made the current character of the conflict "a war of Obama's choosing." :

It will go down as a LOSS and it will effect American foreign policy for years.

So which BS story are you sticking with because you seem to want to have it both ways?

 

[TexanOkie]

Both of these statements are yours. In the first, you say it is ok that Nixon increased troop levels, engaged in strategy, and worked to stand up the ARVN in the Vietnam conflict. Fair enough.



Now in this quote, you are saying exactly the opposite. As a note, you can't further increase the manpower or technological edge without increasing costs. Exactly what Nixon did. Now that Obama is doing EXACTLY the same thing, its not OK. Pick which one it is, you can't have it both ways. Nixon got no traction in Vietnam.

Nixon had the vast majority of troops out in 1971. Without US backing, the South Vietnamese could not beat the NVA. In 1975, the US refused to back the ARVN and the south fell to the NVA. In effect the same situation you state with Obama is likely to happen without a multi decade investment in time as what happened to Nixon.



It will go down as a LOSS and it will effect American foreign policy for years.

So which BS story are you sticking with because you seem to want to have it both ways?

I guess I'm not being clear. I don't want it one way or the other. I'm just saying the issue is complex. By the comparison with Nixon, I was saying it is both ways. For both Bush and Obama, in a way similar (but not identical) to Vietnam under LBJ and Nixon.

 

[wahday]

You are absolutely correct. Which is why it completely astounds me that the Democrats aren't way more successful than they are currently (they're getting defensive and digging up personal dirt for upcoming midterms, even, rather than focusing on their strengths and actual policy and leadership weaknesses within the GOP). It would be incredibly easy, at least theoretically, to establish a generation of Democratic control similar to FDR's New Deal folks.

I think we'll see more of this in the next two years leading up to the presidential election. For now, I think the mid-terms are more about local issues where politicians are asked more about how they will deal with, respond to or otherwise help out their constituencies. I think its much less about the Big Picture stuff (or the GOP would also be talking more about repealing the Health Care legislation, etc.) and more about how well incumbents have served their voters and whether a fresh face could do a better job. But I think these are LOCAL and PERSONAL issues people are worried about now - finding a job, not losing a job, not losing a house, etc.

 

[Planit]

Just remember the first job of a politician is to be re-elected.

 

[TexanOkie]

I think we'll see more of this in the next two years leading up to the presidential election. For now, I think the mid-terms are more about local issues where politicians are asked more about how they will deal with, respond to or otherwise help out their constituencies. I think its much less about the Big Picture stuff (or the GOP would also be talking more about repealing the Health Care legislation, etc.) and more about how well incumbents have served their voters and whether a fresh face could do a better job. But I think these are LOCAL and PERSONAL issues people are worried about now - finding a job, not losing a job, not losing a house, etc.

I'd argue that, despite the GOP not talking about health care, etc., this election will be half (geographically) what you mentioned and half Tea Party referendum. Which race will be which will largely depend on the individual candidates and their respective opponents' campaigns. Some regions of the country (Texas, South, parts of the Midwest - especially the western/Great Plains portion, parts of the NE) are extremely apt to take it this way, where others (old Rust Belt, West Coast) will be what you talked about.

Either way, this election, while it may favor the GOP, won't be nearly as one-sided as many, especially on the right, are thinking it will be, and a great deal of why is due to lack of strong, coordinated leadership.

 

[Hink]

How can conservatives argue about cutting the deficit and complain about spending on social programs, when they are so unwilling to cut funding to the defense budget? This is killing me.

I like this opinion piece as it gives the trouble that conservatives have with being genuinely worried about the economy and just using it as a political point. At least Ron Paul is consistent (albeit bat-sh!t crazy).

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/12/zelizer.conservatives.spend/index.html?iref=allsearch

I enjoy that piece because Sarah Palin called Obama's economic policies backasswords. Other than the fact that I always thought it was bassackwords, she is really telling anyone how to run a budget? Is that because she was governor for a year of a state that has a tremendous amount of oil profits and not many citizens? I can only imagine how hard it must be to budget...

So she is arguing that the government is too big, and that we spend too much on programs... oh but we can't afford to cut spending to national defense. I like it when people contradict themselves in the same sentence. :not:

 

[TexanOkie]

How can conservatives argue about cutting the deficit and complain about spending on social programs, when they are so unwilling to cut funding to the defense budget? This is killing me.

It's not that difficult to understand, even if you don't agree with it. Conservatives have a political philosophy concerning the proper function of the federal government that must be weighed against their fiscal conservatism, and many more social programs don't fit their political philosophy's role for the federal government than defense programs. Most of it stems from a strict constructionist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and a firm belief in federalism as espoused by the 10th Amendment, specifically, and the original framework arguments that won the general public over when the Constitution was first adopted.

 

[Hink]

It's not that difficult to understand, even if you don't agree with it. Conservatives have a political philosophy concerning the proper function of the federal government that must be weighed against their fiscal conservatism, and many more social programs don't fit their political philosophy's role for the federal government than defense programs. Most of it stems from a strict constructionist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and a firm belief in federalism as espoused by the 10th Amendment, specifically, and the original framework arguments that won the general public over when the Constitution was first adopted.

I don't buy that argument. If you had a "strict" interpretation of the constitution, we would not be funding the wars we do today. Not sure how the 10th amendment has anything to do with military spending. This paper (admittedly by a hard left person) explains one argument.

http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/archives/ASSA_US Military Spending.pdf

You can say that this is obviously biased (which it is). But I think some of the points are valid. You cannot argue that this is a good investment, or that somehow the constitution justifies the expenditure. It is a political point, not a rational decision based on the facts or need.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/classweb/United States.html

Look at the times when we spend more on the military. Do you see a trend?

I think saying it is a political philosophy is a cheap excuse to say that it is a political point that they try to win. Kind of like the more American than you argument.

In the end either you support a big government, and the spending it does, or you support a small government and cuts to the programs it funds. You cannot be small government, and support a bloated military. At least not with a clear conscience.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

There presently seems to be a genuine rift on the conservative side of things concerning defense spending at this time. Some of them understand it. Defense spending will come down.

Why conservatives REALLY like a bloated defense budget is because it soaks up a lot of fungible resources that could go toward supporting the social services side of the federal budget.

$12 billion = 1 Aircraft Carrier

OR

$12 billion could equal money for NASA, clean energy research, and so on.

The gop just doesn't want to admit it.

 

[TexanOkie]

I don't buy that argument. If you had a "strict" interpretation of the constitution, we would not be funding the wars we do today. Not sure how the 10th amendment has anything to do with military spending. This paper (admittedly by a hard left person) explains one argument.

http://www.iq.harvard.edu/blog/sss/archives/ASSA_US Military Spending.pdf

You can say that this is obviously biased (which it is). But I think some of the points are valid. You cannot argue that this is a good investment, or that somehow the constitution justifies the expenditure. It is a political point, not a rational decision based on the facts or need.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jephrean/classweb/United States.html

Look at the times when we spend more on the military. Do you see a trend?

I think saying it is a political philosophy is a cheap excuse to say that it is a political point that they try to win. Kind of like the more American than you argument.

In the end either you support a big government, and the spending it does, or you support a small government and cuts to the programs it funds. You cannot be small government, and support a bloated military. At least not with a clear conscience.

It's a lot more complex than that, though. I am not going to defend the two current wars, or argue whether it's a good investment. That wasn't part of your argument. It is, however, a rational argument based on a political belief system firmly entrenched in originalism and federalism, if not by facts (?) and need (based purely on subjective interpretation). You're right that the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with military spending - that was brought up because you initially said you don't understand why conservatives are in favor of cutting social programs but not the defense budget, something a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment supports. Social programs and programs that are not the central roles of the federal (to say nothing of state) government should be cut first, according to this line of thinking.

That's all I was getting at. I also wasn't arguing. I was just defending (or at minimum pointing out that issues are never--not just rarely--so simplistically black and white). I personally agree with the premise that the defense budget is bloated and should be trimmed responsibly - the latest report issued by the Sustainable Defense Task Force offers some good suggestions for doing so.

Why conservatives REALLY like a bloated defense budget is because it soaks up a lot of fungible resources that could go toward supporting the social services side of the federal budget.

$12 billion = 1 Aircraft Carrier

OR

$12 billion could equal money for NASA, clean energy research, and so on.

The gop just doesn't want to admit it.

Conspiracy theory and conjecture based on your own personal biases, and nothing more. It's equivalent to a conservative saying something along the lines that you want to cut defense spending and use diplomatic organizations more to solve disputes, so you in turn want to hand over our foreign relations to the UN. It's wildly presumptive, not true (by exaggeration), and overly simplistic.

 

[Hink]

It's a lot more complex than that, though. I am not going to defend the two current wars, or argue whether it's a good investment. That wasn't part of your argument. It is, however, a rational argument based on a political belief system firmly entrenched in originalism and federalism, if not by facts (?) and need (based purely on subjective interpretation). You're right that the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with military spending - that was brought up because you initially said you don't understand why conservatives are in favor of cutting social programs but not the defense budget, something a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment supports. Social programs and programs that are not the central roles of the federal (to say nothing of state) government should be cut first, according to this line of thinking.

That's all I was getting at. I also wasn't arguing. I was just defending (or at minimum pointing out that issues are never--not just rarely--so simplistically black and white). I personally agree with the premise that the defense budget is bloated and should be trimmed responsibly - the latest report issued by the Sustainable Defense Task Force offers some good suggestions for doing so.

And this is why I bring up these points. I enjoy your views of the political landscape and appreciate your ability to discern argument from discussion.

 

[TexanOkie]

The biggest problem in politics today is "them". Everyone acts irrationally against "them" because "they" are trying to thwart "us" - Duke's latest presumptions illustrate it, as well as several comments in this thread.

It's something I doubt will change. If people could realize that both sides are "us" and there is no "them", perhaps we could actually have an honest debate. There will still be sides to an issue, sure. And I'm sure there will still be a lot of people still unhappy with the outcomes of said debates and those who are unwilling to budge. But if we can bridge the "us" vs. "them" mentality... aw, hell. I'm just being dumb with Utopian wishful thinking. It won't happen. I shouldn't tease myself.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Conspiracy theory and conjecture based on your own personal biases, and nothing more. It's equivalent to a conservative saying something along the lines that you want to cut defense spending and use diplomatic organizations more to solve disputes, so you in turn want to hand over our foreign relations to the UN. It's wildly presumptive, not true (by exaggeration), and overly simplistic.

It's not a conspiracy theory, though I like the thought of that. Its just a theory. It is a much better theory than the gop is trying to raise that obama and bp colluded together to cause the gulf oil disaster in order to pass cap and trade in order to destroy our sovereignty and hand over our foreign relations to the UN.

NAZI UFO's in a base at the Antarctic? Now THAT is a conspiracy theory! 8-!

...... But if we can bridge the "us" vs. "them" mentality... aw, hell. I'm just being dumb with Utopian wishful thinking. It won't happen. I shouldn't tease myself.

NO NO, Don't stop!

If you stop there will be no way you will ever manage to institute a budget based on some obscure Austrian economist and overthrow the US Government with the Tea Party Activists and re-institute a return to the halcyon days of a fairy Constitution existing prior to 1861!

 

[TexanOkie]

It's not a conspiracy theory, though I like the thought of that. Its just a theory. It is a much better theory than the gop is trying to raise that obama and bp colluded together to cause the gulf oil disaster in order to pass cap and trade in order to destroy our sovereignty and hand over our foreign relations to the UN.

First I've heard of that, and I'd like to think I'm fairly well-read, politically, in current affairs. Frankly, I'd classify that theory as conspiracy as well, right up there with the Obama birthplace and "Obama's a secret Muslim" crap. I'm sure people believe them. But those people are also conspiracy theorists, even they are folk/populist conspiracy loons instead of the stereotypical conspiracy nutjobs. They're by no means whatsoever official positions, or even part of official discussion, in GOP circles.

NO NO, Don't stop!

If you stop there will be no way you will ever manage to institute a budget based on some obscure Austrian economist and overthrow the US Government with the Tea Party Activists and re-institute a return to the halcyon days of a fairy Constitution existing prior to 1861!

I'm also not naive enough to believe that an honest and open debate of the issues as I was wishing for would result in policies that reflect my personal opinions on matters. Although I do appreciate your attempt at humor. :glumsmile:

 

[mgk920]

(I decided to return to this forvm :-c )

^^
One of the two top Constitutional priorities of the federal government under the Constitution (and *NO*, it is *NOT* a 'living document' - like with the music of the great masters, we play it as written!) is to defend the borders and to carry on foreign affairs and relations.

Thus, we conservatives/libertarians have no problems at all with paying for a strong military to ensure that security.

Without that, everything else in it is a moot point.

The other is to handle relations between the states and between the states and the federal government and then everything else pretty much devolves from those two.

And under the 10th Amendment, all other affairs of governing not specifically delegated to the federal government are the realm of the states or of the people themselves (as individuals).

Also, all of the 'rights' spelled out in the Constitution are in fact limitations of the reach of government (ie, right of free speech and assembly, to keep and bear arms, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, compensation for public taking of property, etc) and none of them require the actions of others to be enjoyed.

Mike

 

[Hink]

(I decided to return to this forvm :-c )

^^
One of the two top Constitutional priorities of the federal government under the Constitution (and *NO*, it is *NOT* a 'living document' - like with the music of the great masters, we play it as written!) is to defend the borders and to carry on foreign affairs and relations.

Thus, we conservatives/libertarians have no problems at all with paying for a strong military to ensure that security.

Without that, everything else in it is a moot point.

The other is to handle relations between the states and between the states and the federal government and then everything else pretty much devolves from those two.

And under the 10th Amendment, all other affairs of governing not specifically delegated to the federal government are the realm of the states or of the people themselves (as individuals).

Also, all of the 'rights' spelled out in the Constitution are in fact limitations of the reach of government (ie, right of free speech and assembly, to keep and bear arms, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, compensation for public taking of property, etc) and none of them require the actions of others to be enjoyed.

Mike

So you think that our budget is just enough to "defend" our borders? I think that if that were the case we would be just dealing with our own internal problems and creating a defense that basically defends. No need for offensive weapons. We both know that this isn't the case. We actively go into wars (just or not) to promote our agenda of "freedom", "liberty", and "democracy". I am not arguing that these are not just reasons for a war, just whether or not they are true reasons to start with.

I strongly disagree with you about the constitution being a living document, but I can understand your point of view.

 

[boiker]

It's not that difficult to understand, even if you don't agree with it. Conservatives have a political philosophy concerning the proper function of the federal government that must be weighed against their fiscal conservatism, and many more social programs don't fit their political philosophy's role for the federal government than defense programs. Most of it stems from a strict constructionist or originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and a firm belief in federalism as espoused by the 10th Amendment, specifically, and the original framework arguments that won the general public over when the Constitution was first adopted.

I don't degree that defense/security is a fundamental duty of the Federal government, however, I question the merits of the worldwide spread of our defenders. We could easily eliminate 10% of the defense budget re-appropriate resources and people and still provide top-notch protection and defense of the USA. 10% is over 60 billion dollars and far less than .5% the $20 million that a couple republican congressman are griping about as wasteful stimulus spending.

 

[mgk920]

So you think that our budget is just enough to "defend" our borders? I think that if that were the case we would be just dealing with our own internal problems and creating a defense that basically defends. No need for offensive weapons. We both know that this isn't the case. We actively go into wars (just or not) to promote our agenda of "freedom", "liberty", and "democracy". I am not arguing that these are not just reasons for a war, just whether or not they are true reasons to start with.

Where did I say that?

^o)

Sad to say it (and those who are the most in favor of a strong military are also, like me, the most hesitant to use it unless it is absolutely necessary - as Theodore Roosevelt once said: "Speak softly and carry a BIG stick". It is the most effective and respected form of diplomacy of all), but part of that 'defending the borders' and ensuring security every now and then does mean having to take preemptive action far away to prevent truly bad guys from wrecking havoc closer in.

And I *HATE* war! :-@ It is messy, it is expensive, it is disruptive, people get hurt, it creates hard feelings, etc. OTOH, I also realize that military action is sometimes the only course that is appropriate for the situation and for that reason, when it is needed must be done in such a way as to *WIN* and *WIN ONLY*. For that it is critical that the military be able to do that. Anything less would be a total and ruinous waste. And yes, a strong military is a real dis-incentive for bad guys to do bad things to us.

I strongly disagree with you about the constitution being a living document, but I can understand your point of view.

I have never understood that, seeing some judges rule one way when the text of the law and/or Constitution clearly states the direct opposite - and there is virtually zero unambiguous text in the USA's Constitution. And it is one of the World's shortest national Constitutions as measured in number of words, too.



Parts of some states' Constitutions, as well as many federal, state and local laws, are certainly otherwise and do need clarification.

Mike

 

[fringe]

To quote the late professor Howard Zinn, "War brutalizes everyone involved in it."

 

[Hink]

Where did I say that?

I took you saying that since one of the main goals in the constitution is to secure our borders - you meant that we should only pay to do so. You didn't say one of our main goals was to have a Navy twice as large as the next Navy, etc.

"Speak softly and carry a BIG stick". It is the most effective and respected form of diplomacy of all), but part of that 'defending the borders' and ensuring security every now and then does mean having to take preemptive action far away to prevent truly bad guys from wrecking havoc closer in.

See this is different than defending our borders. I respect the concept, but I don't agree with the application. Do we start a war out of fear? Do we start a war out of respect for what someone might do? Do we start a war to make sure some country becomes a democracy? Or do we just defend our borders? I think until we have our financial house in order, we cannot afford to do much more than defend our borders.

OTOH, I also realize that military action is sometimes the only course that is appropriate for the situation and for that reason, when it is needed must be done in such a way as to *WIN* and *WIN ONLY*. For that it is critical that the military be able to do that. Anything less would be a total and ruinous waste. And yes, a strong military is a real dis-incentive for bad guys to do bad things to us.

I completely agree with you that sometimes there is no choice. In the wars that we fight these days, the size of our military does not dis-incentivize people from starting war with us. They don't even call it war. These people are not going to stop attacking us, because we attack them. Although Diplomacy doesn't work with terrorists, it does with countries that aide and abet them. This is where we should be investing.

I have never understood that, seeing some judges rule one way when the text of the law and/or Constitution clearly states the direct opposite - and there is virtually zero unambiguous text in the USA's Constitution. And it is one of the World's shortest national Constitutions as measured in number of words, too.



Parts of some states' Constitutions, as well as many federal, state and local laws, are certainly otherwise and do need clarification.

My take isn't that the Constitution isn't clear on what it says. I just don't agree that we should not evolve as a country because our framers didn't foresee the problems that we face today. You can say that they put in parameters to help figure out how we should deal with it, but the constitution is old. We have a new society, and a COMPLETELY different world than 200+ years ago. Why should we have to be a static nation? Because things were better back then? Slavery, woman's rights, African American rights, interracial marriage rights were all outlawed at some point - and now are seen as not only reasonable things, but essential to our liberty and freedom. Gay rights will be yet another issue that in 10 years we look back and say how on earth did we not allow two people who love each other to marry? How did we discriminate so badly?

Our constitution should live with our society. If we mess up (prohibition), we correct it. I don't like the idea that we live by what was created 200+ years ago, and just accept that it is best for our lives today. Just my personal view.

 

[TexanOkie]

...We have a new society, and a COMPLETELY different world than 200+ years ago. Why should we have to be a static nation? Because things were better back then?...

Our constitution should live with our society. If we mess up (prohibition), we correct it. I don't like the idea that we live by what was created 200+ years ago, and just accept that it is best for our lives today. Just my personal view.

I think you may be missing a key aspect of conservative thought on this, that perhaps isn't being expressed very well. Human nature hasn't changed. Society has, but we're still capable of the same horrible things we've done in the past as a society because of this. Social progress is never a guarantee. The Founders knew this, just as they knew and anticipated that we weren't going to be, and aren't, static as a nation. The Constitution, even interpreting it literally, doesn't require us to be a static nation. In essence it takes the principles of human freedom rationally explained in the Declaration of Independence, and applies them to a form of government. For things that do change, such as the issues of prohibition, women's rights, and slavery like you mentioned, we have the ability to amend the Constitution to reflect such changes. As long as human nature hasn't changed, it's still a good document as written. If the form of government does not work, or if there are ever vast leaps in human evolution, that negate the premises of the document, there's also nothing preventing another Constitutional convention. It's even happened before (albeit not since 1787). You would be hard-pressed to find any objective, reasonable person who, after a thorough Constitutional study, believes there is a need for this yet.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

......
I have never understood that, seeing some judges rule one way when the text of the law and/or Constitution clearly states the direct opposite - and there is virtually zero unambiguous text in the USA's Constitution.
....

Mike

It is not that the Constitution is unambiguous. The issues that need to be placed in the framework of the constitution are what is ambiguous. It is not that hard to understand. A legal case is ambiguous to start with, or it would not land in court. It's a thousands of years old principal that there would be no dispute if the issue was clear.

Since you have a document that changes rarely combined with a modern set of disputes, the unclear issue must be placed in the fabric of the constitution (the dispute ALWAYS comes AFTER the law attempting to clarify an issue).

Ambiguity sneaks in over time as well. There is nothing in the constitution about cars, but they exist, require regulation, and have to fit into the framework of the constitution. How does this work? Partially through the Commerce Claus, but also in many other places, like how does search and seizure work with traffic stops among MANY different issues.

What do you not understand about that process?

 

[mgk920]

My take isn't that the Constitution isn't clear on what it says. I just don't agree that we should not evolve as a country because our framers didn't foresee the problems that we face today. You can say that they put in parameters to help figure out how we should deal with it, but the constitution is old. We have a new society, and a COMPLETELY different world than 200+ years ago. Why should we have to be a static nation? Because things were better back then? Slavery, woman's rights, African American rights, interracial marriage rights were all outlawed at some point - and now are seen as not only reasonable things, but essential to our liberty and freedom. Gay rights will be yet another issue that in 10 years we look back and say how on earth did we not allow two people who love each other to marry? How did we discriminate so badly?

Our constitution should live with our society. If we mess up (prohibition), we correct it. I don't like the idea that we live by what was created 200+ years ago, and just accept that it is best for our lives today. Just my personal view.

Well, that is why the framers had the extreme foresight to include Article. V. EVERYTHING that you cited in those two paragraphs were addressed via that process.

But once things are written down via that process, that is how it is to be played.

One example that I like to cite in a current issue here in Wisconsin - whether or not to require voters to prove their identity and eligibility to vote in an election. I see nothing in either the Wisconsin state nor US Constitutions that prevents poll workers from requiring that voters show proof of identity and eligibility. - HOWEVER - under the terms of the USA Constitution, Amendment XXIV (outlawed Poll Taxes - nobody is ineligible to vote due to reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax, thus tax scofflaws can vote, even if the penalties are felonies which otherwise render those people ineligible), if showing an ID card would be required to vote, the ID *MUST* be issued free of charge. OTOH, of one wants to add proof of driving privileges to that card, then the state MAY charge for that part, but if the card is only a non-driving ID for allowing voting, it MUST be *free*.

IAmbiguity sneaks in over time as well. There is nothing in the constitution about cars, but they exist, require regulation, and have to fit into the framework of the constitution. How does this work? Partially through the Commerce Claus, but also in many other places, like how does search and seizure work with traffic stops among MANY different issues.

What do you not understand about that process?

That is where the 10th Amendment, the commerce clause and the 'Full Faith and Credit' clauses come into play.

The framers were *BRILLIANT* in that they came of with a definite set of rules - but written with the flexibility to be usable for advances that were unthought of in 1787. Federally regulating true 'Commerce' between the states, but not specifying the methods of conveying that commerce. States granting licenses to operate those vehicles of commerce, but federal involvement under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to ensure that the state actions granting (and revoking) those licenses are recognized by all of the other states. Etc.

Mike

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

........
The framers were *BRILLIANT* in that they came of with a definite set of rules - but written with the flexibility to be usable for advances that were unthought of in 1787. Federally regulating true 'Commerce' between the states, but not specifying the methods of conveying that commerce. States granting licenses to operate those vehicles of commerce, but federal involvement under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to ensure that the state actions granting (and revoking) those licenses are recognized by all of the other states. Etc.

Mike

This is where you are missing the point. I mentioned the Commerce Claus, so big woop. The real issues that became muddled come to issues of what in your car could be searched when a person was pulled over. Nothing in the US Constitution outwardly addressed those kinds of issues.

In effect, the SCOTUS eventually had to figure out where such issues should fit. You don't seem to understand that as per usual.

Eventually, after much regulation, they figured out whereabouts in the constitution such issues were placed.

The Constitution is not law so much as it is a method of determining structural jurisdiction of where subject mater is organized. As evidenced by the fact there are thousands more laws than there are articles to the Constitution. It's the SCOTUS job to figure out how to interpret where an argument is located in that structure. Since an argument may touch multiple articles of the Constitution at once, we are going to experience disappointment in the form of not getting what we want on occasion.

Roe v. Wade, like the decision or not, was decided for personal freedom. Very much similar to the very recent 2nd amendment decision. Do people have to like how they were decided? No. But they were decided "Based on the Constitution", or your whole argument the forefathers were brilliant falls apart.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

One example that I like to cite in a current issue here in Wisconsin - whether or not to require voters to prove their identity and eligibility to vote in an election. I see nothing in either the Wisconsin state nor US Constitutions that prevents poll workers from requiring that voters show proof of identity and eligibility. - HOWEVER - under the terms of the USA Constitution, Amendment XXIV (outlawed Poll Taxes - nobody is ineligible to vote due to reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax, thus tax scofflaws can vote, even if the penalties are felonies which otherwise render those people ineligible), if showing an ID card would be required to vote, the ID *MUST* be issued free of charge. OTOH, of one wants to add proof of driving privileges to that card, then the state MAY charge for that part, but if the card is only a non-driving ID for allowing voting, it MUST be *free*.Mike

Be carefull in citing this. This county has a long and nasty history of coming up with creative ways to keep people from voting, specifically minorities. I think this is real fear with the showing a form of ID. Conservatives love to cite voter fraud as a reason they lost an election. Further, it tends to discourage poor and minority voters. These groups largely don't vote Republican.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Be carefull in citing this. This county has a long and nasty history of coming up with creative ways to keep people from voting, specifically minorities. I think this is real fear with the showing a form of ID. Conservatives love to cite voter fraud as a reason they lost an election. Further, it tends to discourage poor and minority voters. These groups largely don't vote Republican.

Its time for a single, nationwide ID card the size of a standard credit card, RFID chiped, hologramed, and issued by a Federal Office or by states with the authority of the Federal Government. FREE! At Federal Government expense.

Don't have a Federal ID? no job. Hire someone to work for you, and you don't register them within 48 hours? Boss man goes to jail for a couple decades. Its a passport, drivers license, and is traceable by all levels of law enforcement on a single system.

Teabagers would refuse to do it, so they could no longer vote irresponsibly!

THE TIME HAS COME!

 

[TexanOkie]

Its time for a single, nationwide ID card the size of a standard credit card, RFID chiped, hologramed, and issued by a Federal Office or by states with the authority of the Federal Government. FREE! At Federal Government expense.

Don't have a Federal ID? no job. Hire someone to work for you, and you don't register them within 48 hours? Boss man goes to jail for a couple decades. Its a passport, drivers license, and is traceable by all levels of law enforcement on a single system.

Teabagers would refuse to do it, so they could no longer vote irresponsibly!

THE TIME HAS COME!

Always tryin' to sow more dystopia. Man, your screen name fits you like a glove.

I call troll.

 

[mgk920]

Be carefull in citing this. This county has a long and nasty history of coming up with creative ways to keep people from voting, specifically minorities. I think this is real fear with the showing a form of ID. Conservatives love to cite voter fraud as a reason they lost an election. Further, it tends to discourage poor and minority voters. These groups largely don't vote Republican.

Unlike you, I am apparently one of the more 'advanced' USAians who is trying his darndest to live in a post-racial society. I abhor ANYTHING that favors or disfavors anyone vs. another for factors beyond his/her abilities - including so-called 'affirmative action' programs, which are nothing more than thinly-veiled attempts at racism - favoring one citizen over another for no reason other than skin color and other related accidents of birth.

The USA is about equality of OPPORTUNITIES, *NOT* equality of OUTCOMES.

And yes, I am very well versed in the reasons for the 24th Amendment.

Mike

 

[Hink]

Well, that is why the framers had the extreme foresight to include Article. V. EVERYTHING that you cited in those two paragraphs were addressed via that process.

But once things are written down via that process, that is how it is to be played.

Article V is a weak answer to the problem. Sure it gives you the ability to alter the old structure, but the way that it allow it to happen is flawed.

I don't believe that we should have to deal with human rights issues through the constitition, they should just be granted. Why should we have to adjust the document to abolish slavery? Why shouldn't we just create a 21st century document that actually works for our world today? Keep the principles, but update to the realities of today. Let's consider it our country's comp plan. It needs to be reviewed every century or so.

I have stated this before, but when a document has only been updated 27 times in 200 years, you either are not accepting the changes of times, or are dealing with it in other ways. In this case, the indirect problems caused by our refusal to update the constitution is the muddled Supreme Court decisions that create the law we live by.

Unlike you, I am apparently one of the more 'advanced' USAians who is trying his darndest to live in a post-racial society. I abhor ANYTHING that favors or disfavors anyone vs. another for factors beyond his/her abilities - including so-called 'affirmative action' programs, which are nothing more than thinly-veiled attempts at racism - favoring one citizen over another for no reason other than skin color and other related accidents of birth.

The USA is about equality of OPPORTUNITIES, *NOT* equality of OUTCOMES.

And yes, I am very well versed in the reasons for the 24th Amendment.

Mike

I too try to live in a post-racial world... too bad such a world doesn't exist.

 

[TexanOkie]

I don't believe that we should have to deal with human rights issues through the constitition, they should just be granted. Why should we have to adjust the document to abolish slavery? Why shouldn't we just create a 21st century document that actually works for our world today? Keep the principles, but update to the realities of today. Let's consider it our country's comp plan. It needs to be reviewed every century or so.

You had to adjust the document to abolish slavery because the practice was officially condoned (or rather, it was indicated that not all people were free) in the original document through the 3/5 Compromise, to say nothing of allowing states the right to allow it through the 10th Amendment. Hence the 13th-15th Amendments.

Why do you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater? The Constitution works, can be amended when need be, even though the process of which tempers the will of societal trends with protections for individual rights so no one group, person, or ideology can consolidate or obtain absolute power. All in all, that's a good thing. Political objectives of both political parties and their ideologies are worth working out through the process that maintains the present Constitution's espoused principles. Furthermore, it does not limit any political goals, within reason. I don't believe that has changed yet, and like I noted earlier, it's hard to find constitutional and US political scholars outside of radical or revolutionary movements who believe otherwise.

 

[kjel]

Its time for a single, nationwide ID card the size of a standard credit card, RFID chiped, hologramed, and issued by a Federal Office or by states with the authority of the Federal Government. FREE! At Federal Government expense.

Don't have a Federal ID? no job. Hire someone to work for you, and you don't register them within 48 hours? Boss man goes to jail for a couple decades. Its a passport, drivers license, and is traceable by all levels of law enforcement on a single system.

Teabagers would refuse to do it, so they could no longer vote irresponsibly!

THE TIME HAS COME!

I agree wholeheartedly. It works well for many other countries and the apocalypse didn't happen by instituting this requirement.

 

[TexanOkie]

I agree wholeheartedly. It works well for many other countries and the apocalypse didn't happen by instituting this requirement.

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government. There'd be no more dumb anti-gay-marriage crap, no more Arizona-like fiascos, no more electoral college and all its hubbub, no more oddities in planning, no more issues with disproportionate representation in the Senate. :not: :-{

Come on, y'all... the Real ID Act was an acceptable compromise that, once it finishes its way through the courts for the handful of states refusing to administer it, meets purposes you described without sacrificing that state sovereignty.

 

[kjel]

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government. There'd be no more dumb anti-gay-marriage crap, no more Arizona-like fiascos, no more electoral college and all its hubbub, no more oddities in planning, no more issues with disproportionate representation in the Senate. :not: :-{

Come on, y'all... the Real ID Act was an acceptable compromise that, once it finishes its way through the courts for the handful of states refusing to administer it, meets purposes you described without sacrificing that state sovereignty.

Federalism has been alive and well for a very long time. Nobody said anything about killing state sovereignty. U.S. passports are issued by the federal government as are social security cards, tax ID numbers, and immigration documents. REAL ID was a stop gap measure because the drivers license/state ID card is the only wide scale document that is acceptable as identification since there is no national card and passports are voluntary. Also states are not required to participate in REAL ID, but if they choose not to their documents cannot be used as federal ID. With REAL ID you are required to assert your right to be in the US whether you are a citizen or an immigrant and you have to provide your SSN number as well. It's not reinventing the wheel in any way, shape, or form-just putting it all on a single card that is much less likely to be forged. "They" already know everything there is to know about you anyways...stop pretending they don't.

 

[TexanOkie]

Federalism has been alive and well for a very long time. Nobody said anything about killing state sovereignty. U.S. passports are issued by the federal government as are social security cards, tax ID numbers, and immigration documents. REAL ID was a stop gap measure because the drivers license/state ID card is the only wide scale document that is acceptable as identification since there is no national card and passports are voluntary. Also states are not required to participate in REAL ID, but if they choose not to their documents cannot be used as federal ID. With REAL ID you are required to assert your right to be in the US whether you are a citizen or an immigrant and you have to provide your SSN number as well. It's not reinventing the wheel in any way, shape, or form-just putting it all on a single card that is much less likely to be forged. "They" already know everything there is to know about you anyways...stop pretending they don't.

I'm not disputing that at all. In fact, the whole argument about searchable by law enforcement in one system is really weak. I'm just wondering how a national ID would serve any Constitutionally-valid purpose? Interstate commerce? The argument could be made, perhaps. But that's about it, really.

All the other things you mentioned are devices behind Constitutionally delineated powers of the federal government - taxes, immigration/foreign relations (i.e. passports), etc. Everything else is that Duke suggested a national ID for are states' jurisdictions. Now, if the states wanted to voluntarily opt into a national ID system, or even did so outside of the feds, that'd be one thing. But let's face it, that won't happen.

 

[kjel]

I'm not disputing that at all. In fact, the whole argument about searchable by law enforcement in one system is really weak. I'm just wondering how a national ID would serve any Constitutionally-valid purpose? Interstate commerce? The argument could be made, perhaps. But that's about it, really.

All the other things you mentioned are devices behind Constitutionally delineated powers of the federal government - taxes, immigration/foreign relations (i.e. passports), etc. Everything else is that Duke suggested a national ID for are states' jurisdictions. Now, if the states wanted to voluntarily opt into a national ID system, or even did so outside of the feds, that'd be one thing. But let's face it, that won't happen.

Isn't your social security number used for anything under the sun? All large employers now must run every new hire's SSN through a verification system to see that the person is eligible to work in the US, small employers are exempt from the check. The SSN card is a joke and so easy to forge, additionally the logarithm that determines one's SSN is not exactly a state secret. Although it wasn't meant to be an ID it is THE de facto ID for all of us (do you know your driver's license number w/o looking at it? bet you know your SSN in your sleep!). Each state issues its own driver's licenses...other states reciprocally agree to recognized that you qualify to drive. What's wrong with police sharing information across state lines...what do you they do when you get stopped out of state? Your license gets called in to your home state and the ticket reported in most cases. States routinely share information in order to collect on child support orders or state tax arrears. What exactly are you giving up that you haven't already?

 

[TexanOkie]

Isn't your social security number used for anything under the sun? All large employers now must run every new hire's SSN through a verification system to see that the person is eligible to work in the US, small employers are exempt from the check. The SSN card is a joke and so easy to forge, additionally the logarithm that determines one's SSN is not exactly a state secret. Although it wasn't meant to be an ID it is THE de facto ID for all of us (do you know your driver's license number w/o looking at it? bet you know your SSN in your sleep!). Each state issues its own driver's licenses...other states reciprocally agree to recognized that you qualify to drive. What's wrong with police sharing information across state lines...what do you they do when you get stopped out of state? Your license gets called in to your home state and the ticket reported in most cases. States routinely share information in order to collect on child support orders or state tax arrears. What exactly are you giving up that you haven't already?

Nothing. That was my point. A national ID is not needed, plus there would be no Constitutionally valid purpose for it like there are with other forms of ID used for national programs.

Also, I do know my DL# by memory. And my wife's SSN and DL#. And my father's. Just a weird thing for me, and it's come in handy a lot, actually.

 

[Duke Of Dystopia]

Always tryin' to sow more dystopia. Man, your screen name fits you like a glove.

I call troll.

I actually do believe it is time for a national ID card. Like I described. How I stated it was tongue & cheek.

Good job Kjelsadeq! Good arguments!

Mostly, the Real ID or "Federal ID" or whatever you want to call it does/could replace the SSN as the primary number you use for many reasons. It also DOES serve as a more effective form of immigration control, law enforcement, and standardization of information between the states.

TO "The Constitution works, can be amended when need be, even though the process of which tempers the will of societal trends with protections for individual rights so no one group, person, or ideology can consolidate or obtain absolute power. All in all, that's a good thing. Political objectives of both political parties and their ideologies are worth working out through the process that maintains the present Constitution's espoused principles. Furthermore, it does not limit any political goals, within reason. I don't believe that has changed yet, and like I noted earlier, it's hard to find constitutional and US political scholars outside of radical or revolutionary movements who believe otherwisee."

I agree with your above statement completely.

 

[imaplanner]

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government. .

Hello. Where have you been? Haven't we already sort of done this?

 

[Hink]

Why do you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater? The Constitution works, can be amended when need be, even though the process of which tempers the will of societal trends with protections for individual rights so no one group, person, or ideology can consolidate or obtain absolute power. All in all, that's a good thing. Political objectives of both political parties and their ideologies are worth working out through the process that maintains the present Constitution's espoused principles. Furthermore, it does not limit any political goals, within reason. I don't believe that has changed yet, and like I noted earlier, it's hard to find constitutional and US political scholars outside of radical or revolutionary movements who believe otherwise.

I don't disagree with your main point. The constitution is an amazing document, and has done a lot for our people over time. I just don't agree that we should be living based on a document that was created X number of years ago. I like the concept, just don't like the application.

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government.

It isn't like you to make sky is falling claims, based on no proof.

I'm just wondering how a national ID would serve any Constitutionally-valid purpose? Interstate commerce?

See you prove my point about the constitution. You are looking at how it can fit in a document that wasn't worried about the problem we have today. Interstate commerce is the catch all for many problems.

---------------------

Personally, I am not scare of having a national ID system. I do not find it as a loss of freedom. I am not worried about the government following me, or knowing what I am doing. Mainly because I am not doing anything illegal. I like the idea of having all my data in one place - as long as it is protected. If you have ever created a database, you know that having ONE reference number/name/whatever allows for all the other data to relate to it. Multiple systems can interact and you can look at information from any place. It all sounds like a way to make things more efficient and save us money to me.

 

[TexanOkie]

[OT]Just for reference, the following was meant to be completely tongue-in-cheek, while many of you have responded as though I actually felt how the defeatist sarcasm sounds. Generally, if I use smilies, I'm not being serious. If anything, was hyperbole taken to "epic" levels.

Let's kill all state sovereignty while we're at it, ditch a federal system, and create a unitarian national government, with states merely transitioning to regional administrative divisions of said national government. There'd be no more dumb anti-gay-marriage crap, no more Arizona-like fiascos, no more electoral college and all its hubbub, no more oddities in planning, no more issues with disproportionate representation in the Senate. :not: :-{

[/OT]

 

[imaplanner]

Unlike you, I am apparently one of the more 'advanced' USAians who is trying his darndest to live in a post-racial society.

No offense intended to you, because I believe you mean it. But... what you just said exactly mirrors some of the stuff I hear from people I KNOW are racist. There is a clear history of racists changing their tactics from outright racism to this argument.

 

[Hink]

This article doesn't surprise me at all. The Tea Party is going to self destruct from within if they don't actually create something of substance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...expels-leader-for-clearly-offensive-blog-post

Part of their challenge, however -- especially in handling broader debates about what they "are" -- is that there isn't a single Tea Party that speaks for all tea party activists. Rather, there are dozens of national and local organizations that loosely coordinate and all emerged in opposition to Wall Street bailouts that occurred under Presidents Bush and Obama and what they perceive as the Obama Administration's efforts to expand the role of government.

Which I guess you could consider this -

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/07/michele-bachmann-starting-tea.html?wprss=44

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) filed paperwork on Thursday to create a House Tea Party Caucus, which she will chair.

At least maybe now, everyone can see the loons get together. Or maybe, just maybe they will actually have to tone down the random rhetoric and actually stand for something. I don't have hope for that though.

 

[mgk920]

One thing that I've always wondered - just what IS the left's ultimate goal? It seems like they are trying to have the government and its ruling elites take over and run everything (health care and banking/finance in the USA now) and wasting no time and effort to badmouth and try to destroy anyone who tries to oppose them - but then what?

I can't sense any logical progression from there - other than to see the results of such activities in other places and times in history (nearly ALL of which have been total disasters).

Mike

 

[kjel]

One thing that I've always wondered - just what IS the left's ultimate goal? It seems like they are trying to have the government and its ruling elites take over and run everything (health care and banking/finance in the USA now) and wasting no time and effort to badmouth and try to destroy anyone who tries to oppose them - but then what?

I can't sense any logical progression from there - other than to see the results of such activities in other places and times in history (nearly ALL of which have been total disasters).

Mike

One could ask the same of the right. Unfortunately it's generally the fringes on either side that dominate the debate and agenda at hand dragging the rest behind.