You should try reading the Constitution some time. I have read it quite often. The Constitution is a document that clearly defines the powers afforded to the federal government. Whether you are liberal or conservative or whatever, we should all be able to agree that the power of federal government has exceeded the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
That said, let me clear up a few things for you. I'm an Atheist so much of what I say here might confuse you, since it supports Christianity. Our founding fathers were not agnostic. They believe in a Creator. That's why we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights". So, according to our founding fathers, the rights afforded to us in the Bill of Rights is something we received from our Creator. I suppose that depending on whatever religion you are or aren't, that your Creator can be anything. Nevertheless, there appears to be credit given to a divine being for our rights. The rights of the individual extend beyond just the Bill of Rights (see Amendment IX). Basically, all rights belong to the individual, whether they are specifically listed in the Constitution or not and that should be clearly understood from the Ninth Amendment. Which brings me to my next argument...
The Second Amendment. This is the amendment that liberals can not wrap their brains around. You simply see the government as beneficial and incapable of the level of tyranny that would warrant every individual being armed and capable of overthrowing it. Our founding fathers did not see government that way. They saw government as malevolent and even drafted a long "bitch list" of things that they felt were just cause for overthrowing government, see The Declaration of Independence for that "bitch list". It is because of your "benevolent government" point of view that you do not support an individual's right to own firearms. You hinge your argument on the meaning of phrases such as "well-regulated" instead of the precise meaning of that Amendment...that the people ARE the militia and as such must be armed. The Army, Navy, Marines, etc., are not the militia. If you read the Constitution, you will see that Congress has the power to raise armies for the purpose of the national defense. They don't have the power to raise militias because they are two separate entities: the militia is the people, the army is for the national defense against foreign invasion and domestic insurrection. Also, "well-regulated" meant "to make regular", not to imply government has the power to regulate the rights given in the Second Amendment. The government can't regulate the Second Amendment, only the Creator can because he is the one who endowed us with that right, so it is not the government's right to change that. Besides, if Congress had the power to regulate private ownership of firearms, that power would have been given to them in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. I've read and re-read that section and nowhere in there is any power of Congress to regulate private ownership of firearms. The Bill of Rights didn't come out at the same time as the Constitution. It came afterward and provided no expansion of power or modify Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. It was more or less drafted because opponents of the Constitution felt that if we didn't clarify our rights, that the government would just assume those rights don't exist, much as they do today. So, until you can find me something in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution that gives the government specific power to modify the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, including the unenumerated rights afforded to us by Amendment the IX, you have no counter-argument for this point that I will find acceptable.
Education is more important than national defense? I won't argue which of those is superior to the other. I will argue that only one of those topics is covered under Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. National defense is covered by the power given to the Congress to raise armies for that purpose. Nowhere in there is any power to regulate education at all. The only way they were able to draft any law that allowed for the creation of the Department of Education was by a tenous interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Clause was about preventing a state like Illinois from taxing something that came through its state from Wisconsin on the way to Indiana. It is not some broad loophole the government can use to try and regulate anything that crosses state lines. Since a man's education follows him wherever he goes, even across state lines, Congress saw it fit to abuse the Commerce Clause and regulate education. You would think that more states would have fought this off but the US government threw money at the states to accept it, and like good little welfare recipients, the states obliged.
As far as economic policy and which person has which quantity of money, that isn't the US government's business either. The whole rich-vs-poor argument about taxation is a fool's argument. Smart people know that income taxes are a form of indentured servitude. I can't very well declare that I am entitled to 40% of the fruits of your labors. I don't think you could find many people who would support that declaration. However, if I promised everyone some of that money I take from you, I bet I could get them to vote me that power. That's how it works...get a large group of people to vote to steal the wealth of the smaller group. Still doesn't make it right, but I assume you still sleep good voting that way.
"Being Muslim doesn’t mean someone isn’t American. Islam is a religion, not a nationality."
Our Congress does have the power to control immigration and say who can come here and who can't. Since I believe in human rights, including the right for a man to travel where he wishes, I can't see fit to argue for the exclusion of anyone from our nation. However, that argument by itself is not thorough enough to satisfy anyone except for the most open-borders type of anarchist. Our founding fathers formed our government on the theories taught by Emerich de Vattel in his book, THE LAWS OF NATIONS. In fact, it is the only book mentioned in the Constitution, see if you can find it. That book describes an ideal immigration policy: one that recognizes a human's right to go where he wishes upon this earth while also recognizing the sovereign right of the nation as well. That book suggests that a nation ought to welcome anyone who is beneficial to the nation and since mere size of population is important in fighting off potential invasion by foreign nation, that includes just about everyone. However, one exception is noted. That exception is those who impose a burden upon the nation. Just as my right to swing my fist in the air ends at your nose, a person's right to travel upon this earth is limited by the damage that he does. It is impossible to micro-manage individuals with regard to immigration. Sometimes, you have to exclude entire groups until it is proven that such groups are no longer a detriment to your society. Unfortunately, the followers of Islam have not purged themselves sufficiently of the extremist element of their society that seeks to harm us and until they do, should not enjoy this nation of ours.
As far as the whole left vs. right thing, our tyrant masters would like us to keep arguing amongst ourselves instead of pointing the finger at them.
Re: Some fun facts
Member #: 40846
Registered: 9/19/2005
Posted:
1493
Name:
Duane Vick
Name:
Duane Vick
Company:
Self-Employed
Occupation:
Installer
Location:
Phoenix AZ
There are 2 replies to this message
