Posted on 09/14/2004 9:27:02 AM PDT by jmc813
Sweet. That is the kind of effort that will win the fight - the people working out what is best for them instead of some top down program rammed down our throat.
But that said, I am very glad that Paul has it in his sights. We need to be ever vigilent about this sort of thing. Centralized concern about the mental health of a people is right out of the Communist and Nazi playbooks. (And those movements were about as far Left as you can get.)
A free society is not afraid of the idiosyncrasies of its individual citizens. A slave society wants uniformity.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Thanks, I will peruse it. You voice legitimate concerns a-priori, though. The difference between the US and other countries is that we have legal and constitutional mechanisms here to influence the decisions of the government. I can compare, believe you me.
I still don't see how it's gonna be enforced. Is the treatment mandatory?
Why don't you contact you congressman and express your fie to him/her?
I don't know how long you've been here, but our constitutional mechanisms are breaking down. More and more our government is not so concerned with what is constitutional, but with what they can get away with and still get elected. We have degenerated from a constitutional republic to an unrestrained democracy, some say an oligarchy.
Few unconstitutional measures are deemed so. Most intrusions lately are most effectively countered by widespread outrage coupled with bad publicity. Which is why I'm here right now making a great big stink about this.
I can compare, believe you me.
It has been my observation that those from oppressive countries don't take their freedom for granted as much as those born here and have grown complacent. These Americans foolishly think "it can't happen here".
Some immigrants have seen much of the same before at home, fled it and want no part of it again. I think you may possibly be that kind of person. We need lots of these people.
That's an excellent idea. I will, and I think we all should.
I still don't see how it's gonna be enforced. Is the treatment mandatory?
I don't yet know.
You figured me perfectly.
I have a daughter with severe brain damage. She looks normal, but she has speech and behavior problems. She should be in a wheel chair, but for some reason her brain did figure out how to walk and do other gross motor skills.
Anyway, when she was 3 she wasn't talking. She was very frustrated and was having lots of terrible temper tantrums, especially when she was tired. I did not know how to handle these tantrums.
I went to a psychologist that our pediatrician referred us to. The first thing the psychologist asked me if I would consider putting my daughter on medication.
I never went back.
At 7, my daughter is much better behaved. Instead of working on every bad behavior, I worked on behaviors that were the worst. For example, at 3 she liked to run into the street or parking lot without looking, without holding hands. For 6 months, we worked on this. Every time she ran away from me, I picked her up and either put her in the car, in her room, or I held unto her for a long time. I didn't work on other behaviors like hitting and biting. After about 6 months of intense work, she finally stopped running out into the street. At 7, she still asks either to hold my hand to cross the street or she asks if it is safe.
Now at 7, she is very well-behaved at school. She still has some tantrums at home, and we are still working on that. Her brother bugs her, and she doesn't handle the situation well. She just punches or kicks him. (Sometimes I think he deserves it.)
My point is that she didn't need drugs. She needed a strong discipline/behavior plan. She's learned how to handle herself in different places, and she doesn't have to rely on drugs.
I'm not anti-drug. My mother is a manic depressive, and lithium keeps her from going totally crazy (not an exaggeration). I just don't think it should be the first choice, especially when children are involved.
I was listening to Ron Paul a couple of weeks ago on C-Span. He said the WEAKEST argument one could use in Congress to try to stop the passage of a bill is that it is unconstitutional.
They won't necessarily consider if a bill is constitutional or not anymore. And of course, some activist judges feel the same way.
Algore was right. The Constitution is a living document that can be interpreted on whim.
I agree with you, but there are a lot of other psychiatric treatments which don't involve drugs.
She needed a strong discipline/behavior plan. She's learned how to handle herself in different places, and she doesn't have to rely on drugs.
Such as your successful behavior modification. That's great.
I disagree that our Republic is breaking down; the problem is that the Supreme Court disagrees with what many conservatives, and freeee especially I'd bet, thinks about the Constitution. I'm willing to accept their judgment; if I don't like it, then I can try to get an Amendment passed.
The problem is the restraints on government are outright ignored and voters don't care. The servant has become the master. This isn't anything surprising. Jefferson predicted as much when the Republic was formed. The predictions of the anti-federalists have sadly been proved with uncanny accuracy.
I'm willing to accept their judgment; if I don't like it, then I can try to get an Amendment passed.
You mean something like this?
Amendment X: 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.
A lot of good that did.
I'm convinced that they were smarter than that; they would not have put the General Welfare clause into article 1 if they hadn't meant it. Lord knows they argued enough about every other clause...
Funny that it meant the same thing until FDR came along.
It's ironic that you claim the founders were parsing words. That has been the primary method for corrupting the Constitution and transforming the model of government from one of limited, enumerated powers to one of unlimited non-enumerated ones. This has been come to be known as the "living constitution", and is the centerpiece of the "progressive" movement that is the hallmark of liberals and the Democratic party. Is that what you're defending?
I'm convinced that they were smarter than that; they would not have put the General Welfare clause into article 1 if they hadn't meant it
I think if they saw what was done with it, they would have never included it. It was a fatal mistake in the design of the Republic, along with a lack of detail as to the scope of the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, as well as the right of seccession.
Some of them rightly feared an expanding government and fought for the 10th Amendment to clarify that all government powers must be enumerated. And the government simply ignores it as if it was never passed.
If the alternative is an Constitutional extreme fundamentalism - "if those exact words aren't in there it's not allowed" - then yes.
For example: Where in the Constitution does it say that the Manhattan Engineering Project was permitted? Where in the Constitution does it say that the purchase of Alaska was permitted?
Article I, Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence (and) To raise and support Armies (and) To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia
Where in the Constitution does it say that the purchase of Alaska was permitted?
It doesn't. That's why we have an amendment process. When government operates outside its enumerated powers, and simply grabs new ones without asking permission (which is what the amendment process is), then it is in open rebellion against the will of the People, and has defied the document that created it.
The consequences of this predictible behavior were known from the very beginnning:
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed"
- President George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796
If the alternative is an Constitutional extreme fundamentalism - "if those exact words aren't in there it's not allowed" - then yes.
For example: Where in the Constitution does it say that the Manhattan Engineering Project was permitted?
We have given our government the power to wage war. Making bombs is part of waging war.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the purchase of Alaska was permitted?
Article IV, Sec 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Good catch, I missed that one.
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.