|
Acting to change the government to follow it's own laws by trying to convince others of this need, by the state governments asserting their rights (as they are with the many lawsuits against Obamacare, or Texas' fight against the federal environmental agency), or by lobbying for politicians who hold with your views is no more treasonous than attempting to convince others to follow any other political ideology.The government, however, isn't beholden to it's own laws. It has to lay aside it's sovereign power (which it does in specific situations) for that to occur.
If the government is not beholden to its own laws it is a tyranny. Whatever it says goes. This is exactly why we have a Constitution, and why the federal government is beholden to it as much as the states and the people. It was specifically created to prevent a dictatorship, or tyranny.
I'd argue against your point on "Obamacare" as being more of a personal opinion then a legal mandate. We're all required to have car insurance if we want to drive, no one debates the constitutionality of it.
My statement on Obamacare was that many states are suing the federal govenment and seeking to stop the implementation of Obamacare under the the arguement that it violates the Constitution. The fact that at least 30 states are participating in lawsuits against the federal government at this time over this issue is not a statement of personal opinion, it is fact. The implication that I approve of this action by the states would be a personal opinion - by definition, as approval or disapproval of an action is always a personal opinion - but I don't feel constrained to go out of my way to declare it such, as I felt it as implied as the implication of approval itself.
I understand what you're striking at - that if the change is brought about through proper channels and methods that it's acceptable - but I don't ascribe to the thought.
Technically, by that reasoning, we could (if a proper consensus was reached) outlaw the use of our left hands, if it was done through the right channels and in the right manner.
This is correct. If done through the proper channels, we could change the law of the land to any silly thing we want. The proper channel differs depending on what crazy law we wanted to make. Let's take your left hands are outlawed example.
Does it violate any portion of the constitution? I'm not sure what federal power the government has to regulate a person's ability to use their left hand. There is no intrinsic violation of anyone else's rights inherent in the use of a person's left hand - so unlike murder, you are not outlawing the use of left hands to prevent the removal of someone else's basic rights. I think there would be lawsuits if any legislation of this nature could get through both houses of Congress (a pretty big if), and the judiciary could step in.
If such a law were considered constitutional and became the law of the land, the people still could call popular constitutional conventions and amend the Constitution to protect the right of people to use both hands.
Let me put it this way. If you don't believe that any change can happen to the United States if that change goes through the proper channels, then you believe that some changes can never happen in the United States except through violence. If this is the case...who decides what changes are not allowed? The president? The Courts? The congress? Bob down the street? Something must define these immutable things.
I say that something is the Contitution. The Constitution was set up to protect the people and the states from a tyranny of the federal government. It was set up to protect the power of less populous states from the overwhelming size of the more populous states through the equal representation in the Senate. It was set up to protect the basic rights of everyone from the tyranny of the majority. It was set up to pit the different branches of government against each other in their pursuit of power to lessen it's ability to overreach itself. In one vital aspect, the perpetuation of slavery, it failed at the outset. At great cost, that moral outrage and contradiction was corrected.
Even the Constitution, however, can change. It is a difficult process. I believe it is good this process is difficult. We need to be sure that the Constitutional changes we make are truly important. That these things we add are held as important enough to be made an immutable part of our contract with each other for a social society. But I believe it is necessary that a way to change the Constitution exist.
Sometimes the government exists to protect us from ourselves as well. (I didn't want to use another, more charged issue because I thought it would detract from the conversation).
I do not believe the government should protect us from ourselves. I believe many people agree with you, but I believe a government that protects us from ourselves also stifles us from our true potential for greatness. It's like a smothering mother. She will protect her baby from all harm, controllig his life to prevent him from making mistakes, protecting him from the results of foolish decisions, stopping him from trying to do new things he might fail at. Suddenly she realizes her baby is 27 years old and still unable to live as an adult. I believe a government that believes its duty is to protect people from the consequences of their own bad decisions leads to a nation of adult children.
I believe a government that believes its duty is to protect people from the consequences of their own bad decisions leads to a nation of adult children.
I very strongly agree. Unfortunately, almost everyone has a different opinion of what is the result of "bad decisions" vs. the result of a number of systems already in place, so that only exceptional luck can result in any other outcome.
Jess, do you believe that the government has Sovereign Power? I think I remember reading that you said that it did but that it was voluntarily given by the people to the government, which I don't believe to be true. If that were the case, we could withdraw that granted power.
The government itself is not beholden unto it's laws. It passes laws and regulations then voluntary submits itself to them. The Federal Government creates laws, controling itself from within.
I think my major point of contention with what you're saying is that you view the law as being seperate and distinct from the government (the establishment, not the people) and I do not.
The government does things on a day to day basis that would be illegal for citizens to do - it can take your land against your will so long as it compensates you, it "Interrogates" people, and we kill.
People can direct the government in inappropriate ways, and they should be held personally accountable, but the substance of the government itself (sovereign power) is never at fault (in my opinion).
I think it's too early to make definitive statements about President Obama's health care plan. As has already been stated, judgments of Constitutionality are in the hands of the Supreme Court, and the issue is far from settled.
I absolutley DO think that change can be made to the government through proper channels. I don't think some changes should ever be allowed to be made, however. One of those changes, to me, would be scaling back the federal government to an archaic state.
I agree with you on the Constitution being the foundation of the government, although it's largely disconnected from the current government and the current state of the union. I think that probably the most important part of what you said is that it helps to prevent area's with larger populations from completely steamrolling area's with smaller populations.
Concerning the latter half of your post, as it all revolved around the issue of government protecting it's people from itself;
I disagree. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I don't think either of us will budge much on that one. Also, I'm from Vermont, and we're fairly socialist.
There is no national law mandating car insurance.
I live in New Hampshire, and I don't have to insure my car at all. Why? 'Cause that's how we kick it.
"Live free or die"--General John Stark
Removed some posts. Please be courteous to each other.
There is no national law mandating car insurance.
I live in New Hampshire, and I don't have to insure my car at all. Why? 'Cause that's how we kick it.
"Live free or die"--General John Stark
That's interesting, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder how motorists from other states insurance interacts with that. Vehicle insurance is mandatory, in one form or another, everywhere else except N.H. Why should health insurance be any different?
Our republic is basically a Plutocracy right now.
It was pretty much back then as well. The Founding Fathers were drawn from the upper economic elite class of the thirteen colonies. The movement to independence originated in the upper class for the interests of the upper class and was then imposed on the population as a whole. The typical poor British response to needs of colonial management helped push the sale of the idea though, as the British handling trammeled on what the colonists felt were their basic rights as Englishmen.
Industrialistion further established the work force as an underclass. What we know of as the middle class would not exist until the reforms that rebuilt the economy from the collapse of the Gilded Age.
That makes sense, thanks for sharing the info.