The US Constitution (not the ship)

[Arturo2nd]

We are not disagreeing at all. In fact we are in agreement that the Federal Government cannot be counted on to maintain our basic freedoms. However, it is my opinion that the government has been co-opted by the multi-national corporations (just as Adam Smith predicted), which are undemocratic and anti-humanistic structures in and of themselves. What is more alarming from my point of view as a U.S. citizen is that the multinationals that are dominating our economy are less and less U.S. Corporations.

Two points where we disagree is that I believe that the Supreme Court has ordinarily failed to protect the rights of the common people and interpreted the laws in favor of the corporate interests. I do not see how anyone examining the opinions of Alioto, Gorsuch, and Thomas nowadays, and a whole series of rulings running from the 19th Century until the mid-20th can argue otherwise. Given the dominance of corporations, I think it is naive to argue for limited government. Some entity needs to be powerful enough to offset and contain corporate power. Given that national governments tend to become instruments of oppression in controlled by the forces of wealth and privilege, it is my opinion that an international government will be necessary to create a balanced power dynamic. Most likely, that government will also be co-opted, but it is my opinion that the whole Libertarian agenda is just as naive as their Anarchist brothers on the left.

All of these arguments have every indication of not mattering much as humanity continues to add energy to the dynamic of our ongoing sixth mass extinction event.

P.S. Robert Morris's slide into bankruptcy and disgrace was really rather tragic given the enormous contribution he made to the Patriot's cause. Only a few of the Constitutional delegates slid into criminal behavior, but that really is a tangent to the whole nation creating enterprise.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

We are not disagreeing at all. In fact we are in agreement that the Federal Government cannot be counted on to maintain our basic freedoms. However, it is my opinion that the government has been co-opted by the multi-national corporations (just as Adam Smith predicted), which are undemocratic and anti-humanistic structures in and of themselves.

Again ... what does this have to do with the framers of this country?

Originally Posted by Brian249x

What is more alarming from my point of view as a U.S. citizen is that the multinationals that are dominating our economy are less and less U.S. Corporations.

Surprise! But whenever we Libertarians bring up this, the left-wing goes, "Oh, you're just anti-immigration." All while we're trying to say, "No! You don't understand, not only is the right-wing is using your ignorance against you, but the left-wing is right on-board because most of those laws appeal to the pro-immigration facade!"

We must remain educated to remain free. Americans don't know their civics.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Two points where we disagree is that I believe that the Supreme Court has ordinarily failed to protect the rights of the common people and interpreted the laws in favor of the corporate interests.

The courts in general have been doing that! Eminent Domain is a major issue in the US right now, often done for political reasons, framed to seem as 'for the common good.'

The US Supreme Court has been slowing some down, but has screwed up in other cases. And it is not just the 2 Justices you mentioned!

Originally Posted by Brian249x

I do not see how anyone examining the opinions of Alioto, Gorsuch, and Thomas nowadays, and a whole series of rulings running from the 19th Century until the mid-20th can argue otherwise.

That is a shallow, US media argument. If you think it's just those 3 on everything, you really haven't been reading the actual rulings.

Yes, I take great issue with them at times. But they've also gone against the left-leaning Justices on Eminent Domain too! Anyone who reads the actual rulings knows this. Those who listen to the US media do not.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Given the dominance of corporations, I think it is naive to argue for limited government.

And herein lies the problem.

This 'limited government' argument and 'anarchy' comment about us Libertarians is based on the left and right-wing defining such.

The problem? The US gov't no longer 'regulates' ... it 'controls'!!! That's the key point!

We Libertarians would like to just get back to 'regulation.' There is more direct US gov't control right now than in the UK or even France. It's scary!

Until people stop spewing that shallow, US media rhetoric that we Libertarians are against 'regulation' and for 'anarchy', it will continue.

The Obama administration pretty much proved that the bigger government gets, the more the mega-corporations control things. Hillary was going to be worse. And Trump is just proving he cannot stop it either, and is utterly just another 'fool in the chain.'

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Some entity needs to be powerful enough to offset and contain corporate power. Given that national governments tend to become instruments of oppression in controlled by the forces of wealth and privilege, it is my opinion that an international government will be necessary to create a balanced power dynamic.

So ... go bigger, less local, eh? Sigh ... (face palm) ... that's what we Libertarians fear most.

If the Soviet taught us anything, it's that the farther away, the less accountable. Centralization is the problem.

State and, best of all, local is what balances. The US gov't was designed to protect civil rights and provide for the common defense ... not provide everything.

But in the last 50 years, this has changed. 2 generations have grown up believing the US gov't knows best. They are utterly ignorant on the fact that state and local pays for nearly all of education, nearly all of law enforcement and the great majority of public healthcare.

I try to explain these things, even use the state and federal budgets, and Americans won't believe that. They want to send more money to the US gov't, the same entity that can declare war.

And if you think the UN cannot ... think again. Read up on the '50s and early '60s and Africa and other things. The UN no longer engages in 'offensive activity' because of the politics of its leaders during those years.

More centralized and farther away is the problem! You're going the wrong direction!

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Most likely, that government will also be co-opted, but it is my opinion that the whole Libertarian agenda is just as naive as their Anarchist brothers on the left.

Because the US media has told you that we Libertarians are 'limited government' and 'anarchist.'

No ... Libertarians are the return to the "Radical Republicans" of the 1860s to 1960s. I'm amazed by how many Millennials don't know that the Republicans used to be the "True Liberals."

Originally Posted by Brian249x

All of these arguments have every indication of not mattering much as humanity continues to add energy to the dynamic of our ongoing sixth mass extinction event.

Actually, the market -- not government -- is pushing a green revolution. It started mid last decade with OPEC.

Only engineers, not politicians, can create green technology. If my time at NASA taught me anything, it's the folly of politicians. Don't get me started. I don't work in government any more for that reason, despite first-hand referrals, including from both the Obama, and now Trump, administrations.

This is the reality. Look to Canada. Look at what they are doing. The average American is so ignorant of their 'consumer impact,' and do not want to make the sacrifices required. Americans are against pipeline, so we use even worse rail and truck. The Canadians hate us for our rail killing their citizens, and want us to build pipelines.

But going outside of America, European citizens are much, much better in this regard than any of us in the western hemisphere. But at least they build pipelines too, when required.

So I don't like it when Americans just 'blame the corporations.' They just don't want to 'see' how their cow is chopped into a steak. If they were forced to ... say ... pay a carbon and other impact tax -- for their goods made elsewhere, then shipped over nasty, and I mean nasty, container ships, etc... -- they'd change overnight.

But until Americans don't want to pay for carbon, personally, it won't change. "Make the corporations create 0 impact technology." As an engineer, I'll tell you ... that's impossible.

Yes ... we Libertarians are FOR carbon (and other impact) taxes! The Obama adminsitration is an absolute ideal example of total special interest in cap'n trade. Multi-nationals, mega-corporations accelerated under Obama, especially around Energy ... other than Shale.

The irony is that nearly all of Obama's 8% CO2 drop was due to Shale that started 2 years before he got in. But that's another story.

At least on the Energy front, it's happening. Europe and Asia are being forced to Green, and fossil fuels are getting expensive, which means America is changing too. Many major energy companies are investing, as Shale is just a stop-gap.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

P.S. Robert Morris's slide into bankruptcy and disgrace was really rather tragic given the enormous contribution he made to the Patriot's cause. Only a few of the Constitutional delegates slid into criminal behavior, but that really is a tangent to the whole nation creating enterprise.

No, a good number of them were. A lot of them were hypocrites. A lot of them were greatly flawed.

I have a general and great distain for Thomas Jefferson. Hillary Clinton reminds me most of him too, especially the circumstances and media leading up to his election. Hillary just lost. I wish she would have won, and her Progressive agenda would have been totally despised by Liberals by the time her term was over.

It would have 'reset' the Democrats. The party really needs to be. The Republicans are already going through their change, and it's getting ugly. But at least it's happening, albeit slowly. Trump is forcing it, and he will be hated in the long haul for it ... because he's not a politician.

But a reality TV star. That's why the US media wanted him as President. He's awesome for revenue.

[Arturo2nd]

I have been thinking and understand your arguments. It cannot be denied that the experience of large governments and centralized state control (e.g. USSR, Maoist China, Nazi Germany) is really ugly. I have been appalled to discover what some of our liberal and progressive icons have really been up to. Our little discussion keeps wandering off to other issues and into the unforeseen consequences of the Constitutional Convention's work.

Here is a little throwaway observation: http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...8&postcount=95

It might help you to understand my views to know that I was raised in a large family and that I was brought up Roman Catholic and spent years in their schools. My instinctive understanding is that we are part of a larger community and society and our individual wants and desires are subordinate to the success of the larger group. Another core value is that character development is far more important than wealth accumulation. A third is that surplus wealth is to be shared with those less fortunate. It is almost funny that you spent many years working for the government and grew to greatly mistrust it and I spent years working in Corporate America and came to believe that we must do everything possible to resist the influence of corporations.

But I continue to digress. You have failed to persuade me that the primary motive of the creators of the U.S. Constitution was something other than maintaining and expanding their political power and wealth. I acknowledge that I omitted mentioning that most of the delegates were also committed to framing a republican form of government. Alexander Hamilton was the most notable and vocal advocate of building an empire and the United States eventually taking a place among the great powers.

Thomas Jefferson was a man of many contradictions. His hypocrisy and inconsistency was constantly noted in the press, in the political speeches of the day, and by biographers and historians ever since. He was not, however, a delegate to the convention and played no direct part in its framing.

[Arturo2nd]

I have posted more on my thinking in the "Current or Modern Politics" thread believing that more discussion is in order, but this thread is not the proper place for it.

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...postcount=2771

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by Decadence

The 14th amendment is interesting in that it doesn't cover what people think it does.

The official line is: the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to "make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them."

No mention of anchor babies, or anything to do with illegals. In fact, as you may surmise, the purpose of this was to protect, among others, native Americans.

Not so. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who - as you may have surmised by his name - was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. American Indians were not made citizens until 1924.

I really hate revisionist history.

If you hate revisionist history why are you using an erroneous ruling by SCOTUS to revise history. I understand that SCOTUS has the final word on what is constitutional but that does not mean they are infallible. SCOTUS is comprised of 9 lawyers in black robes. You know lawyers, for a long time the most hated profession, are subject to personal biases.

Because SCOTUS got it wrong in 1884, they have a long history of wrong decisions that later courts reversed or revised, does not mean that was not the intent of the amendment. You can make that argument about native Americans but you would be, along with SCOTUS, wrong. What you are doing by citing SCOTUS is to raise a SCOTUS ruling to the level of infallibility. If SCOTUS is always right then you, as a liberal, would have to agree that more current rulings like People United, Heller, and Hobby Lobby are constitutional.

What about the slaves. There is no question the 14th was intended to grant citizenship to slaves born in the America. And unless you are willing to ignore the plain language of the 14th it would also apply to Native Americans.

So that brings us to the question of the 14th in regards to anchor babies. In the censuses of 1860 the population was 31.4 mil. up 35.4 percent from the 1850 censuses. Our nation was growing at a large rate because in part because of the need to populate the vast expanse of the west. In the 1860s if you were headed south towards Mexico unless you were a surveyor you would not know were/when exactly you left Texas and entered Mexico. The term illegal immigration, if it even existed in 1868, did not mean what it does today. There is no possible way for John Bingham or Jacob M. Howard ( the men who wrote the 14th ) could have envisioned America with a population of over 320 mil. Nor could they envision the welfare state that America has turned into that acts like a magnet for the poor, inducing them to break our immigration laws. Do you think it was their intent that the 14th be used to circumvent US immigration law, further more acting as a magnet for Latin America's poor to come here illegally?

It was clearly not the intent of the 14th to create anchor babies. In 2017 birthright citizenship is doing great harm to America and it should be changed. I believe Article 5 of the 14th gives congress the right to change this by legislation as opposed to having to change it threw another amendment.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

We are not disagreeing at all. In fact we are in agreement that the Federal Government cannot be counted on to maintain our basic freedoms.

One of the interesting questions is "Who did the Founders think were supposed to maintain our freedoms?"

Remember -- the Bill of Rights is in fact an "afterthought" to the Constitution. EG, they wrote the Constitution, and then realized they'd established a Government with all sorts of powers, but no real limits.

So, you then get the Bill of Rights.

But the thing that they never specified is what remedy there is for a Federal Government that violates these rights. That the Supreme Court may enjoin the Federal government based on their reading of the Constitution is, itself, not in the Constitution-- though its long established by Marbury v. Madison.

The awkward truth is that, contrary to Tea Party cranks who walk around with pocket Constitutions -- of which they appear to have read only a portion of the 2nd and 10th Amendments-- the Constitution is anything but complete, and doesn't go much further than broad principles which must be interpreted by judges or supplemented in law to have practical application to the modern world.

So, other than impeachment, the Founders simply didn't say what's supposed to happen when the Government does bad things . . .

[Arturo2nd]

For those who think that the founders of our republic believed in the wisdom of crowds I offer the quotes below.

from Alexander Hamilton:

"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."

From James Madison:

Viewing the subject in its merits alone, the freeholders [that is, landowners] of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty. In future times the great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of property. These will either combine under the influence of their common situation, in which case the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands; or, which is more probable, they will become the tools of opulence and ambition, in which case there will be equal danger on another side.

What we have now is the same type of voters as decided to execute Socrates are now deciding the fate of our nation. Our founders were very much aware that all previous experiments with democracy had devolved into tyranny within a few centuries.

[Paddy Bog]

Originally Posted by Faceman675

Nor could they envision the welfare state that America has turned into that acts like a magnet for the poor, inducing them to break our immigration laws.

It is only partially true that social welfare benefits attract illegal immigrants from Latin America and elsewhere. They also know that there is a very good possibility that they can get jobs in the U.S.A. Maybe the work won't pay much by U.S. standards, but its better than they would get in Central America. Many American businesses have always been happy to hire illegals as contract workers. (Then if ICE shows up it basically isn't the businesses fault as long as the worker's usually false social security card s written down. Even if convicted of hiring illegal workers the business usually only get a slap on the wrist while the workers are deported.) Hotel rooms wouldn't be cleaned, there would be less construction/repair work, landscaping would look terrible, and crops would not be picked without illegals in modern America. Big business has always relied on immigrants to bust unions. The meat packing industry bringing in illegals by the bus load in the 70's and 80's pops to mind. This is America, so it's all about the bucks and business also induces illegals to come because it saves them money.

Oh, and I do support taking automatic citizenship away from anchor babies. That is very constitutional, but then I ain't a lawyer.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Faceman675

Nor could they envision the welfare state that America has turned into that acts like a magnet for the poor, inducing them to break our immigration laws.

Why is it that right wing racist bigots keep ignoring the simple fact that illegal immigrants are legally barred from accessing the welfare system? Even legal immigrants face significant legal barriers to accessing taxpayer supported systems without qualifying for citizenship. Moreover, it is well known that the process of becoming a citizen is difficult enough that most native born citizens cannot pass the exam.

[haunted]

Originally Posted by Arturo2nd

For those who think that the founders of our republic believed in the wisdom of crowds I offer the quotes below.

from Alexander Hamilton:



From James Madison:



What we have now is the same type of voters as decided to execute Socrates are now deciding the fate of our nation. Our founders were very much aware that all previous experiments with democracy had devolved into tyranny within a few centuries.

What new limits do you think should be put on the franchise in the US?