Does Bush Understand?

actually i do think the preamble is within the context of the Consitituion

0 Replies

I believe that trespassers is correct with respect to "pursuit of happiness" being words from the Declaration of Independence. The closest the Constitution comes is in the preamble with the words "promote the general welfare".

0 Replies

Quote:

Inalienable Rights
The government of the United States is the result of a revolution in thought. It was founded on the principle that all persons have equal rights, and that government is responsible to, and derives its powers from, a free people. To Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, these ideas were not just a passing intellectual fad, but a recognition of something inherent in the nature of man itself. The very foundation of government, therefore, rests on the inalienable rights of the people and of each individual composing their mass. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson, is the fundamental statement of what government is and from what source it derives its powers. It begins with a summary of those inalienable rights that are the self-evident basis for a free society and for all the powers to protect those rights that a just government exercises.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence which was a basis for the Bill of Rights. He had little input into the Constitution.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

actually i do think the preamble is within the context of the Consitituion

But then no one has stated otherwise. (Or did I miss something?)

- TW

0 Replies

To this:

Quote:

The liberal, most often the Democrat but not always, sees the American Republic as a powerful means to make life better for the vast majority of it's citizens.

TW wrote this in reply:

Quote:

Where I disagree with you on this is that I think this describes both the liberal and the conservative point of view. The difference is in how each believes the government acts as "a powerful means to make life better for the vast majority of it's citizens".

It seems to me that liberals believe the government does this by taking money from those who earn it and using it to better the lives of those who did not.

I've heard this before, and I've always wondered if Conservatives make their money differently than the rest of us. Do they earn it a vacuum without using any of the benefits of this free society? Do they not use it's highways, it's utilities, it's communications systems, it's educational systems and other parts of the vast resources we have in order to earn that money? If they do use those things that this republic offers them, do they not owe the republic something in return for that use?
It seems to me, that what you are describing, the taking money part, is a recognized business practice, that you take some of the profits gained and reinvest them back in your business. That is what liberals do. We take money, no doubt hard earned, and reinvest it in the Republic's resources: it's environment and it's most important commodity, it's people.
And guess what: those people become producers and earners and taxpayers, that's how the cycle is supposed to work. Earn, re-invest, earn more.
I have some thoughts on what I believe is the fatal error of Conservatism: it's love of only the powerful people, but I'm out of time this morning.

peace, still possible.

Joe

0 Replies

Quote:

Does Bush Understand?

I've come to the conclusion he doesn't try, he doesn't even care!

0 Replies

Joe - You make some more good points, but again, I don't think the question is whether to "invest in the people", but how best to do that, and what part the Constitution allows the federal government to play in that goal.

Many liberals seem to assume that when a conservative says the federal government should not be doing X, that means the conservative thinks no one should do X; that X should not be done. This is not a valid assumption. (It may be the case with some issues, but not with all.)

For example: I find no power enumerated within the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in charitable or "welfare" programs. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I don't think society should help those in need, it simply means that I don't think the feds are the ones who should do it. (Anyone who wants to argue the specifics of this example, please do so in this separate discussion, dedicated to that debate: Social Programs: Federal v. State)

But I do understand your point of view here, I'm merely hoping I can help you to better understand mine, and that of others you consider to be "conservatives".

0 Replies

Quote:

Tres
: I find no power enumerated within the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in charitable or "welfare" programs. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I don't think society should help those in need, it simply means that I don't think the feds are the ones who should do it

.

Apparently this is one area of disagreement between you and Bush. Not only is he intent on supporting charities with Federal $ he wants to through religious entities. I should remind you that the world is not static and what was good and proper 200 years ago is not in today's environment. In light of that the constitution cannot be static and has to also be interpreted to reflect today's world.

0 Replies

au - If you want to debate me on this tangential issue, please do so in the other discussion dedicated to it. Thanks.

0 Replies

Tw
The statement of fact does not belong in the discussion you referred to. It is where it belongs. Your Welcome.

0 Replies

au - I'm not sure why you have a problem with my suggestion that we avail ourselves of an existing discussion dedicated to this tangential topic so that this topic can continue on course, I can only tell you that I remain willing to discuss it there if you change your mind.

0 Replies

<sigh>

0 Replies

Tres

Quote:

For example: I find no power enumerated within the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in charitable or "welfare" programs. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I don't think society should help those in need, it simply means that I don't think the feds are the ones who should do it.

This is a statement made by you in this posting. My respose was in reference to it. Nothing to argue about it is merely a statement of fact.

0 Replies

I can't stay tonight. I'm too busy:
A) getting ready for the big march on Saturday in NYC
B) duct taping my windows
C) reading over and over USAT page 3 wherein they quote me. Cool

but I have to remind BillW that although T. Jefferson didn't write the Articles of the Constitution he was the author of the Bill of Rights. When I was a youngster one of my teachers described how in 1789, Jefferson, who was in France at the time, woke up from a sound sleep and wrote to James Madison that the lack of a Bill of Rights in our Constitution 'rang in his brain as a firebell in the night.'
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0950.htm

night.
peace.
Thanks for the link tw,
I'm coming over tommorrow
if we are still alive and I don't forget..................... Joe

0 Replies

Yes, Joe - he was very dissatisfied with the Constitution that his ideas from the Declaration of Independence did not get into it. He, of course didn't single handedly write the Bill of Rights - but, was most instrumental!

His begining fights of the Federalists for the Rights of the people began here!

0 Replies

I think if you look into the matter more carefully you will find that it was George Mason, not Jefferson who most nearly was the Father of the Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Tres

Quote:
For example: I find no power enumerated within the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in charitable or "welfare" programs. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I don't think society should help those in need, it simply means that I don't think the feds are the ones who should do it.

This is a statement made by you in this posting. My response was in reference to it. Nothing to argue about it is merely a statement of fact.

au - Here you've gone out of your way to quote me out of context. Here is exactly what I wrote:

Quote:

Joe - You make some more good points, but again, I don't think the question is whether to "invest in the people", but how best to do that, and what part the Constitution allows the federal government to play in that goal.

Many liberals seem to assume that when a conservative says the federal government should not be doing X, that means the conservative thinks no one should do X; that X should not be done. This is not a valid assumption. (It may be the case with some issues, but not with all.)

For example: I find no power enumerated within the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to involve itself in charitable or "welfare" programs. That does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that I don't think society should help those in need, it simply means that I don't think the feds are the ones who should do it. (Anyone who wants to argue the specifics of this example, please do so in this separate discussion, dedicated to that debate: Social Programs: Federal v. State)

But I do understand your point of view here, I'm merely hoping I can help you to better understand mine, and that of others you consider to be "conservatives".

People will note the section I have made bold here, which you left out when you quoted my text. I offered that example purely to illustrate another point, and clearly and politely asked that if anyone wanted to debate the merits of my example, they do so in another thread dedicated to that discussion. You chose not to, and it seems increasingly clear you did so out of some misplaced hostility. I really don't care why. I just think you ought to drop it.

0 Replies

Mason and Jefferson were the best of friends to the very end. They both conspired to develop the working documents for Virginia's government which, obviously, became the leading inspirations for many of the original USA documents.

Mason held out signing ratification of the Constitution because it did not have the peoples rights included. Jefferson hurried to assist Mason in crafting the Bill of Rights - Mason the Father of the Bill of Rights, yes --- these two men were the inspiration and the driving forces!!!!!!!!!

http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreticalorphilosophicalissues/history/fatherbill.html

I do not always divulge every thing I know on every subject every time I sit down. Life is not an essay test that requires full disclosure every time something is written or said. No remonstration is necessary - if one wishes to expand or clarify, please do so. However, it does not reflect a lacking on anothers' part!

0 Replies

What did they mean by "provide for the general welfare?" Hmmm

0 Replies

Geeze, LW, i'd have thought that was obvious: bail out Chrysler, coddle Enron, open up wilderness areas to oil exploration . . .

0 Replies

Does Bush Understand?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know