What do you think?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Hardballer, Sep 26, 2009.

?

Who here believes. . .

Poll closed Oct 1, 2009.
  1. electing new politicians will change things for the better?

    15 vote(s)
    27.8%
  2. supporting Obama will change things for the better?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. doing nothing will change things for the better?

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. starting over? (you know what I mean)

    39 vote(s)
    72.2%
  1. TAB

    TAB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    North Texas
    Actually, the process probably started in 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshal, in Marbury v Madison, found that the Supreme Court had the authority to determine the Constitutionality of a law or govt action. According the the Federalist Papers, it was intended that the President should determine constitutionality of laws before signing them and veto any that were unconstitutional. That was the primary purpose of the veto. But Marshal found something in the Constitution that wasn't there. Courts have been doing it ever since.
  2. Hardballer

    Hardballer New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2008
    Messages:
    471
    Location:
    Smack dab in da middle
    I don't think anyone gets what I am really saying here. I don't give a rat's. . . Well, you know, as to any of the crapola we're discussing here. To me, it is just the ideal if we set things up again.

    If we vote in 2010 with a ballot, no matter how it ends up, we are just voting for the same stuff different day. It will be an utterly meaningless exercise in futility.

    Unless we play hardball (read extreme) with ourselves, and the world, the US as you know it is done.
  3. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,719
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    I know what you are saying and agree. When dealing with liberals in the past I have found that they seem unable to debate logically, that is, their arguments are full of holes, and they refuse to acknowledge their errors when pointed out. It's as if they believe they can create their own reality. They follow this when discussing and interpreting the constitution.

    That is why I believe the constitution should be amended to firm up the intent of the bill of rights, to ensure that the intentional misinterpretation of the constitution for political purposes would become impossible. For example make it clear that neither executives both federal or local, nor legislaters, nor courts may infringe on the right to keep and bear arms by any law abiding citizen.
  4. red14

    red14 Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,950
    Location:
    N FLA
    We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.
    Thomas Jefferson

    ""As to those that pay no taxes and are here illegally, secure the borders, round up the illegals and send them home. That will be a huge plus to the system and then we can look at able bodied that are on welfare and give them the jobs the illegals had.""

    This is where I think we should start. We have millions who are registered and do not vote. We have many millions more who don't even register. If we can mobilize those and kick out the aliens, we can start somewhere else.

    They have the votes, some not even living, we need numbers. I think most of our problems stem from illegal aliens.
  5. TAB

    TAB New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    North Texas
    The US as we know it is done? Hmmm...The US, as I know it, changes. It always has because change is built into the Constitution. The 3 branches of govt. exist in a dynamic tension, like a triangle balanced on a pole with one branch at each apex. Never in equilibrium, one branch always a bit more powerful than the other, depending on which party controls. The two party system is not described in the Constitution, but is an almost inevitable evolution given the prevailing conditions at the time. Power swings from one to the other. keeping the triangle unbalanced. In practice, no party is ever likely to gain absolute control of all 3 branches for a significant period of time. The party that is out works harder to get back in, aided by the fact that Lincoln's rule holds: "You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

    The result is a system of government that itself is inefficient at consolidating power because it can't easily ignore or override the will of the people. The problem today is that too many of the people don't care to either express their will or just don't have any to express, so government is getting out of control. But we don't have a tyranny of government--the system is working as designed. We have a tyranny of apathy and our out-of-control government is just a symptom. Don't attack the symptoms, attack the cause.
  6. Teejay9

    Teejay9 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,257
    Location:
    Southwest Corner of the US, "Where no stinking fen
    Well, the polls are closed, but I still believe if we changed the rules a bit so that these Senators and Reps can't make a life-long career out of politics, we might get some good people. Our system, as it stands, allows these politicos to stay forever. That leads to corruption. There are good people who would do well in office, but with the likes of Kennedy (I know...dead), Dodd, Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Byrd, Murtha, ad nauseum, we'll be stuck on this merry-go-round forever. I still feel that we have the best form of government there is, but it has it's weak points. We should limit lobbyists, PACs, and all the temptations from politics and maybe we could get somewhere. Isn't it odd that when a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. When a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants no one to have them. Same with meat. When a conservative doesn't eat meat, they don't buy it. When the liberal doesn't like it, they form PETA and don't want anyone to eat it. If a conservative doesn't like a news program, he turns the channel. When the liberal don't like it, they want a "Fairness Doctrine." What a screwed up bunch, those liberals. TJ
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2009
  7. tntrucker

    tntrucker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    119
    Long thread, don't know if anyone will get this far. Our Founding Fathers never intended for everyone to have the vote; that's the problem! I'm NOT talking about race or sex! Zero-liability voters! People that don't pay taxes-don't have anything invested in this country. People on the govt. "dole"- when they hear "new govt. program- it's what do I get? When I hear new govt. program-it's how much do I lose?
    Yes we need to take care of the helpless. But hard work needs to be rewarded. Everyone can't have the same amount. Communisim doesn't work.
    Can anything be done? I don't know? If 51% of voters are sucking the govt. tit?? I don't want anything GIVEN to me; but am I going bust a gut supporting people that won't work?? I wonder if we are living in the last days for America?

Share This Page