Time to disolve the Union (Page 5): Tom The federal government does or tries to mesh itself into all of those state issues below whether is through the Department of Education, OSHA...

VladimirPee

Tom

The federal government does or tries to mesh itself into all of those state issues below whether is through the Department of Education, OSHA and other federal agencies.

Tom B wrote:

Larry: The central government doesn't rule everything. Far, far from it. You get your driver's license through the state. Your state has its own police force and its own militia. Your local municipality paves your roads. Your local building inspector dictates what you can and can't do in building or upgrading your residence and place of business. You have your own health department, agencies that set rules and regulations on hunting and fishing. Your state has its own department of education and its dictates are carried through by your local school district board (which taxes you). You have your own district courts and appellate courts and state Supreme Court. Your city has its own set of lengthy ordinances. You may have a library board, a forestry department, sewage and water commission, planning and zoning regulators. Etc., etc. etc.

When it comes to Congress, your state has the authority to draw congressional districts, and that can be done in such a way to ensure a particular party member gets elected (i.e., gerrymandering).

Go to your local library and ask for a copy of your state's statutes. You'll see there are probably hundreds upon hundreds of laws. They apply to you, and they didn't come from Washington. Ditto for your city, town or village ordinances. You'll find that book of ordinances has a whole lot of heft, too.

Congress, the executive, the federal agencies, the federal courts all exist to deal with issues that transcend state borders, address foreign affairs or bear directly on the federal constitution.

Despite your understandable frustration with current Washington politics (a frustration I share, by the way),
I don't see any remedy that would pass constitutional muster. Both houses of Congress have the constitutional right to organize themselves in any way they see fit. So, we can't undo the Senate's filabuster (hence, the need for a "super majority"), nor can we undo the ruling party's control of all committees (which control what does and doesn't come to the full body for a vote). We can't get rid of any federally elected office holder or federal judge unless they are deemed to commit a high crime or misdemeanor. In short, there is nothing that can be done legally to break the present impasse.

I would personally outlaw political parties. But that goes against the constitutional right to associate. I would personally outlaw lobbyists, but that would go against the right to petition our government. I would outlaw campaign donations from anybody for any amount, and set aside a specific amount of public funding for primary winners in federal elections. That's been ruled by the Supreme Court as an infringement on free speech. I would address the deficit and budget in a fell swoop by enacting a flat tax without exemptions other than personal emergencies. That's totally lawful, but, to my knowledge, has no national support, and there's a private bureaucracy that will fight this to the death.

So, Larry, I don't have any (acceptable) answers. Nor does anybody else I'm aware of. This will continue to be the most divided Congress (and the most dangerous) since just prior to the Civil War, when Congress was hopelessly split over the issue of slavery. And we know how that turned out.

We could throw the rascals out, of course, and hope those who take their places will have learned a lesson (similar to what happened in post-Watergate elections). But Democratic districts are going to elect other Democrats and Republican districts will replace their reps with other Republicans.

Anybody for a march on Washington?

Larry: The central government doesn't rule everyth... (show quote)

emarine

DennisDee wrote:

Not a grim reaper by any measure. Just the truth seeker.
1776 America had people with common values, common language, common religion and most of all a common problem ( King George). Although a small percent were Tories. Todays America has many different people with different priorities and desires and many of those beliefs are clashing with one another. Time to rethink the situation

Truth seeker?
What is truth?" is a very simple question. Of course, answering it isn't so simple. We can offer definitions like "Truth is that which conforms to reality, fact, or actuality." But this basic definition is not complete because its definition is open to interpretation and a wide variety of applications. What is reality? What is fact? What is actuality? How does perception effect truth? We could offer answers for each of these questions, but then we could again ask similar questions of those answers. I am reminded of the paradox of throwing a ball against a wall. It must get half way there, and then half way of the remaining distance, and then half of that distance, and so on. But, an infinite number of halves in this scenario never constitutes a whole. Therefore, it would seem that the ball would never reach the wall if we applied the conceptual truths of halves.

The ball-against-the-wall scenario simply illustrates that defining and redefining things as we try to approach a goal actually prevents us from getting to that goal. This is what philosophy does sometimes as it seeks to examine truth. It sometimes clouds issues so much, that nothing can be known for sure.

But, even though it is true that an infinite number of halves (1/2 of "a" + 1/2 of the remainder + 1/2 of the remainder of that, etc.) does not equal a whole, we can "prove" that it does by simply throwing a ball at a wall and watching it bounce off. Actually, the "1/2" equation above does not equal a whole -- mathematically. The problem is not in the truth but in its application, as is often the case with philosophical verbal gymnastics.

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ," (Col. 2:8).

In order for truth to be defined properly, it would have to be a factually and logically correct statement. In other words, it would have to be true. But, perhaps we could look further at truth by determining what it is not. Truth is not error. Truth is not self-contradictory. Truth is not deception. Of course, it could be true that someone is being deceptive, but the deception itself isn't truth.

In relativism, all points of view are equally valid and all truth is relative to the individual. If this were true, then it would seem that this is the only truth relativism would have to offer. But, the problem is that in reality, relativism isn't true for the following basic reason. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self-contradictory.

Again, what is truth?

If there is such a thing as truth, then we should be able to find it. If truth cannot be known, then it probably doesn't exist. But, it does exist. For example, we know it is true that you are reading this.

Is there such a thing as something that is always true all the time? Yes, there is. For example, "Something cannot bring itself into existence." This is an absolutely true statement. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it would have to exist in order to be able to perform an action. But if it already existed, then it isn't possible to bring itself into existence since it already exists. Likewise, if it does not exist then it has no ability to perform any creative action since it didn't exist in the first place. Therefore, "Something cannot bring itself into existence" is an absolute truth.

The preceding example is a truth found in logic, but there are truths that are not logical by nature. It is true that I love my wife. This isn't logically provable via theorems and formulas and logic paradigms, but it is, nevertheless, true. Therefore, we can say that truth conforms and affirms reality and/or logic.

Is this what relativism does? Does relativism conform to reality and logic? To be honest, it does to some degree. Relatively speaking, there is no absolute right or wrong regarding which side of your head you should part your hair, if you part it at all. To this we must concede relative "truths" that are different for different people. But, these are relativistic by nature. Examples of relativistic truths are: 1) people drive on the right side of the street in America and the left in England; 2) I prefer to watch science fiction over musicals; 3) snow is better than rain, etc. These things are relative to culture, individuals, preferences, etc., and rightfully so.

If we ever hope to determine if there is such a thing as truth apart from cultural and personal preferences, we must acknowledge that we are then aiming to discover something greater than ourselves, something that transcends culture and individual inclinations. To do this is to look beyond ourselves and outside of ourselves. In essence, it means we are looking for God. God would be truth, the absolute and true essence of being and reality who is the author of all truth. If you are interested in truth beyond yourself, then you must look to God.

"I am the truth"

For the Christian, the ultimate expression of truth is found in the Bible, in Jesus who said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." (John 14:6). Of course, most philosophers and skeptics will dismiss His claim, but for the Christian, He is the mainstay of hope, security, and guidance. Jesus, who walked on water, claimed to be divine, rose from the dead, and said that He was the truth and the originator of truth. If Jesus is wrong, then we should ignore Him. But, if He is right, then it is true that we should listen to Him.

The eyewitnesses wrote what they saw. They were with Him. They watched Him perform many miracles, heal the sick, calm a storm with a command, and even rise from the dead. Either you believe or dismiss these claims. If you dismiss them, that is your prerogative. But, if you accept them, then you are faced with decisions to make about Jesus. What will you believe about Him? What will you decide about Him? Is He true? Is what He said true?

Truth conforms to reality. Jesus performed many miracles and rose from the dead.

truth

/tro͞oTH/

noun

noun: truth

1.

the quality or state of being true.

"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"

synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candor, honesty; More

accuracy, correctness, validity, factuality, authenticity

"he doubted the truth of her statement"

antonyms: dishonesty, falseness

that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

noun: the truth

"tell me the truth"

synonyms: what actually happened, the case, so; More

the gospel (truth), the honest truth

"it's the truth, I swear"

fact(s), reality, real life, actuality

"truth is stranger than fiction"

antonyms: lies, fiction

a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

plural noun: truths

"the emergence of scientific truths"

synonyms: fact, verity, certainty, certitude; More

law, principle

"scientific truths"

antonyms: lie, falsehood

Origin

More
Old English trīewth, trēowth faithfulness, constancy (see true, -th2).

Translate truth toChoose languageAfrikaansAlbanianArabicBelarusianBosnianBulgarianCatalanChinese (Simplified)Chinese (Traditional)CroatianCzechDanishDutchEstonianFilipinoFinnishFrenchGalicianGermanGreekHaitianHebrewHindiHungarianIcelandicIndonesianIrishItalianJapaneseKoreanLatvianLithuanianMacedonianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSerbianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwahiliSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianVietnameseWelshYiddish

Use over time for: truth

truth

/tro͞oTH/

noun

noun: truth

1.

the quality or state of being true.

"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"

synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candor, honesty; More

accuracy, correctness, validity, factuality, authenticity

"he doubted the truth of her statement"

antonyms: dishonesty, falseness

that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

noun: the truth

"tell me the truth"

synonyms: what actually happened, the case, so; More

the gospel (truth), the honest truth

"it's the truth, I swear"

fact(s), reality, real life, actuality

"truth is stranger than fiction"

antonyms: lies, fiction

a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

plural noun: truths

"the emergence of scientific truths"

synonyms: fact, verity, certainty, certitude; More

law, principle

"scientific truths"

antonyms: lie, falsehood

Nuclearian Loc: I live in a Fascist, Liberal State

bluejacket wrote:

If you looked at who receives the most help from the government it is the red states who mostly agricultural
if you want to get rid of socialism start with the farm subsidies , and then we will see the conservatives squeal

If the bloodsuckers get something for nothing, at least they are getting something for something. I think YOU would squeal if your food bill goes up because these farmers dont get subsidies. Something for something is better than subsidies for nothing.

VladimirPee

The Truth many of the reasons for the Declaration of Independence are repeating themselves

One could compare invasions of privacy such as the quartering of English troops to NSA spying on Americans

( He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.) Obama has refused and even passed executive orders which trample on existing immigration laws.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance ( IRS scandal anyone?)

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever ( Executive orders)

emarine wrote:

Truth seeker? ... (show quote)

skopii

It's not the system that should be faulted. It's the Corrupt practices by the Corrupt politicians in the system. The more that WE ALLOW them to further Collaborate and Deceive, the more WE ALLOW for the acceleration of America's downward spiral. Why don't we just "Vote Incumbents OUT!" Replace them with people who will aim for a "Surplus in the Budget" and people who will Repeal the duplicitous unnecessary regulations. New People, who will repeal ALL of those PERKS that they have deceptively sneaked in for themselves, at OUR EXPENSE. Fewer, but competent people in government, who will simplify and supervise government, not complicate it for obfuscating purposes, such as the 20,000 page Obamacare "Don't Read It, Just Sign It" nonsense. Abject incompetent stupidity; and they all went along! Why? If they are so lazy, or incompetent that they can't rationally perform their function Properly, then what's the point of having them in government? What's the purpose of having more idiots in government who are unable to think for themselves? Why are they in Lockstep, with the other idiot politicians who signed? There's nothing wrong with the Constitution, the Preamble, the Declaration of Independence; but there is a lot Wrong, with the politicians who Corrupt it, and work Against the American People. A way to correct the downward spiraling is to Reverse the Dynamic of the idiots:
"Vote Incumbents OUT!" Thank You.

bluejacket

larry wrote:

Wait a minute, maybe there is something to the division that we haven't thought about. Since the majority of crime is in the cities, maybe we should have different rules for city people than rural people. How would that work? It would mean that there would have to be some way to identify who is who. How about we take a leaf from the Nazi cook book. Have all city people wear a pink ribbon.

the Nazis made Homosexuals wear a pink triangle not a ribbon and it was wrong then as any such talk is wrong now , before you start advocating Fascism better find out how you would fit in with that ideology

VladimirPee

Naa just build a fence around the cities with guard towers and machine guns

bluejacket wrote:

the Nazis made Homosexuals wear a pink triangle not a ribbon and it was wrong then as any such talk is wrong now , before you start advocating Fascism better find out how you would fit in with that ideology

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

maelstrom wrote:

I don't understand how people say they love this country and yet go along so effortlessly with its undoing instead of standing up and fighting for our unity. United we stand divided we fall.

Great words but we are not really united. But we are truly divided.

If we can not find some common ground on a site like this we will always be divided.

This will be fine with the monied interests.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

Tom B wrote:

Well, yes. Of course, the Constitution is relevant today. It's still the law of the land, so that's stating the obvious. Is there really anyone in this country above the age of 8 who doesn't understand the Constitution is the legal framework of the nation? I hope not.

But, no. Equating the Declaration of Independence to anything other that what it was intended to do is simply off base. The colonies were making a case for breaking from the yoke of foreign authority as practiced by King George III. To insinuate that it provides a basis for breaking away from our own system of government is simply wrong-headed or wishful thinking. It does not.

Because, if you were to say the Jeffersonian reasons in the Declaration of Independence give us a foundation to rise against our own government, then you are talking about succession. And the absolute last thing any of those preparing to go to war with England wanted to see was a splintering of the colonies. That would have been suicide.

The same applies later to the delegates to the Constitutional conventions. A fractured nation would have been totally opposite of why they gathered in the first place, which was to replace the Articles of Confederation. They had proven themselves to be disastrous because they did not create a glue strong enough to tie a nation together and put it on an (almost) equal footing with others.

Indeed, the Constitution itself was originally drafted in such a way that splintering would be avoided (hence, no mention of the issue of slavery, which surely would have driven a wedge between slave-holding colonies, let alone the delegates themselves, many of whom were slave-holders.)

Look, Obama is not King George III. Obama is not putting up soldiers in citizen's houses, he is not unilaterally exacting taxes on goods to go to his private treasury, he is not impressing citizens to man his ships. He is not building forts of his own army in cities around the country.

For the most part (although not totally), he's trying to do what he said he would do when he ran for the presidency twice. The majority of people said OK and elected him. When they elected him, they theoretically elected his ideas.

But, two years after his first election, the people also elected a House of Representatives with a majority of the members being not of Obama's party or policies. We've had gridlock ever since. That is exactly the way the system was designed to work by dint of the wisdom embodied in the Constitution and the way is balances powers.

Conservatives should rejoice that the provisions of our legal framework of government have not allowed this president nor any other to run amok. The existing system reined in Andrew Johnson when he tried to undo much of what had been accomplished by Union victory in the Civil War. The existing system brought down Richard Nixon for his attempts to use executive agencies for political purposes. The existing system quashed FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

If Barak Obama oversteps his authority, the same thing will happen to him.

You don't need succession. The system is still rock-solid as it is because the Constitution IS being followed and will continue to be followed.

(BTW, I find it extremely interesting that the libertarian and tea party mantra of Constitutional avoidance is being used ceaselessly against a president who taught constitutional law in one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

Obama's toes probably know more about the Constitution than any poster on this board, including me.)

Well, yes. Of course, the Constitution is relevant... (show quote)

A well thought out piece.

VladimirPee

Each and Every day they trample on the Constitution via executive order or judicial activism. To admit anything else is either dishonest or ignorant of the facts. Shall we begin with the Kelo vs New London eminent domain case or the recent Obama executive order which refuses to deport certain illegal aliens?

How does Obamacare fall within the framework of the 10th amendment?

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.[

[quote=Floyd Brown]A well thought out piece.[/quote]

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

edwardian wrote:

I would take it a bit farther, I would go to federation, or state sovereignty. 50 different places, 50 different choices.
Countries are too large to manage, too many people, too many different opinions and preferences, needs, etc.
Folks can migrate toward their desires.
Of course it's difficult to get past "everybody must be equal" crowd.

Well don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

bluejacket wrote:

If you looked at who receives the most help from the government it is the red states who mostly agricultural
if you want to get rid of socialism start with the farm subsidies , and then we will see the conservatives squeal

A bit of truth there.

VladimirPee

Not quite as truthful as it may seem. The report includes federal money going to federal expenses like National Parks. Alaska is 2/3rds national park

Floyd Brown wrote:

A bit of truth there.

bluejacket

DennisDee wrote:

Not quite as truthful as it may seem. The report includes federal money going to federal expenses like National Parks. Alaska is 2/3rds national park

yes it is as truthful as it seems most red states are agricultural based and the y get more federal money in than flows out , most blue states send more money to the federal government than they receive , most red states have stricter requirements for welfare and food stamps than blue states and the red states have a greater need than the blue states , same with health care , generally speaking where the need is greatest the recipients get less

VladimirPee

The largest agricultural state is California and its certainly not red. Red States also have the 5 largest Military installations in America. Those costs are included in that silly study. GM alone received 50 BILLION DOLLARS. In a Blue State. How much of the 85 Billion per month Bernanke is pumping ends up in New Yorkers hands?

bluejacket wrote:

yes it is as truthful as it seems most red states are agricultural based and the y get more federal money in than flows out , most blue states send more money to the federal government than they receive , most red states have stricter requirements for welfare and food stamps than blue states and the red states have a greater need than the blue states , same with health care , generally speaking where the need is greatest the recipients get less