Posted on 01/18/2013 6:13:36 AM PST by Kaslin
Were we ignoring or violating the Constyitution in 1976? Or 1963? How about 19 - whatever?
What I’m saying is that we need to restore and return to a period when the social laws on the books resulted in American greatness.
Where are those laws now? Do you recall a time when all 50 states had Sodomy laws? I do. And call me a nanny stater if you like - but I want a return to those times.
But of course you - you see those times as unconstitutional?
Sheesh. I just don’t get you libertarians.
It is not in the US Constitution because these are matters left to the States to deal with.
The fiscallty conservative position on taxes is that they are there to fund the activities of the government. Period. They should not be used to coerce citizeins into doing what you, or Obama, or Bloomberg thinks is best for them.
The problem is the law is supposed to be equal regardless of race, creed, or belief. Sure you could provide a tax incentive for married couples to have children. I guess I’d argue we already have that with tax credits. Those credits have nothing to do with healthy relationships and in some ways might actually do the opposite. What if those incentives simply caused people to co-habitate with the intent of shelling out kids for financial reward? That doesn’t sound very healthy to me.
Don’t confuse marriage with “civil unions” they are not the same. Marriage is a construct of the church and civil unions are a construct of the state. I have a “civil union” with my wife that the state recognizes but I also have a marriage that God recognizes.
As for unmarried welfare queens, not sure what you are going to do with their starving children. It’s easy to say but the reality is they will exist regardless. Maybe there is a better solution to at least discourage them from such a life style.
I understand and agree with your concerns but don’t believe government is the answer in solving those problems.
Right. So you blame us Socons for 200 years of rule and power in America. And as a result of us having the majority voice in rulings, in laws, in all areas of the government, we now are to blame for that power that has been taken away from us and handed over to the liberals?
Look. Understand first that the Constitution is a moral document. See the John Adams quote if you want. And any attempt to demoralize the Constitition is an assault on it and will result in the mess we have now.
Gun laws don’t prevent mass shootings, what makes you think any kind of social laws will lead to a more moral society? What you’ll likely get are laws that do exactly the opposite and violate our God given rights. Your premise is flawed, the government cannot make anyone “straighten up and fly right”, those days are long gone.
“First YOU show me the clause in the US Constitution that permits the Federal government to prohibit abortion. Or same sex marriages. Or whatever”
Why would you think I wanted the Feds to do any of that?
States should be free to permit or prohibit whatever they want, that is no a violation of their own and the US constitutions. Why would you think I want any different?
I am naivve. I admit it. I hold out an option (the only option) for the salvation for America is dependent on our returning to those long gone days. The government did do it. It worked for 200 years, but now?
I remind you what America's greatest president once said; "If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
I will to my dying breath hold onto the hope that America retuns to one nation under God. What are YOU going to hope for?
Look. Understand first that the Constitution is a moral document. See the John Adams quote if you want. And any attempt to demoralize the Constitition is an assault on it and will result in the mess we have now.
Where did I state that? My views are in defense of the Constitution, and the limitations it imposes. I believe in a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, and any attempt to expand upon it or assume "implied" powers is wrong - PERIOD!
200 years of SOCON rule? Your math may need some minor tweaks, as may your interpretation of SOCON rule through the latter part on the 1800's through the mid 1900's. The decline began much sooner than 1976, as one elitist after another sought to expand the interpretation of our founding document and sieze new opportunities to "preserve" society. That line of thinking gave us Lincoln, Coolidge, FDR, Johnson and along with it: Social Security, Keynsian economics, the welfare state, etc. How is that working out for us?
In my advanced age I’ve become a more of a realist. I do still have hope for the future but as the years tick by my perspective shows me that we are accelerating to the abyss not away from it. Government cannot fix the problem. The ONLY thing that will get us off this path is some kind of massive unifying event that resets our priorities.
New laws will not change anything. If God cannot prevent you from sinning the government surely cannot.
You are not naive, just hopeful. But you should separate your hopes and dreams from the reality the world provides. Laws rarely accomplish what they set out to do and more so when they make criminals out of good men.
“Past performance is not a guarantee of future gains” that not only applies to finance but life in general. History will repeat itself because history shows that it will repeat itself ;-)
You cannot make someone become a believer, they must come of their own volition. The consequences of moving away from God is a less moral society but the government cannot fill that void nor should it try.
If the Republicans want me to vote for them, then get some Republicans at are actually republican!
How freaking hard is that to understand?
Do you really think Coolidge belongs on that list? I think he was the last President that tried to govern within the Constitution.
Why would you think I wanted the Feds to do any of that?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, for silly little things like freedom and liberty and crap like that.
To think that the fedgov must defer to the States on issues like these is beyond naive. When Obama decreed a state can not enforce state and federal laws regarding immigration, what did Arizona do? They capitulated. And when Obama will issue E/O’s regarding the 2nd Amendment that violate state and federal laws, what will happen? Same thing. Each state will go; “Baaaa”, and will follow along.
The point? Ignore states rights and deal with the power that controls us. And that’s why we need the Feds to uphold the values that made us great.
I see you two agree that the country is in a moral mess and the government cannot fix it.
We all three agree the country is in an economic and fiscal mess, and the government probably cannot fix it.
Perhaps historians are right. America - like all great nations has reached its apex. Democracy works, but only for 200 years. Then it falls apart.
How did that hypothetical person get $53K in debt? Probably because they couldn't pay their monthly bills with $50K.
Yes, he was. But he also did nothing to promote the understanding of why - hell, he basically did absolutely nothing at all. That is just as detrimental as taking action in the opposing vein, in my opinion. His views were clear, and he was a true Constitutionalist - the last in the line of Presidents, but he helped it all go to hell in a handbasket by not taking action to preserve what he believed.
“And that’s why we need the Feds to uphold the values that made us great.”
then you had better start planning to amend the Constitution, unless you really don’t care about the Constitution, which would means that you really don’t care about the nation.
Where is any real world evidence for your bizarre claim, and besides, it was simply a fantasy description of an impossible reality anyway.
The reality is that conservatism is both social and fiscal, liberalism is the opposite, and libertarians are a handful of fantasy people who imagine a world of broken and liberal people who for some odd reason won’t vote themselves social gifts to support their lifestyles.
There’s no such thing as a fiscal Conservative/social liberal. You cannot pay for a leftist social agenda by being a fiscal Conservative. It costs beaucoup bucks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.