Generational Dynamics World View News

[Guest]

I see you found nothing in the Bill of Rights. There is no guarantee that you will never be on the loosing side of an issue?

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about having to pay for illegal immigrants (or for any other governmental social program).

The short form for democracy goes something like “the will of the majority checked by the rights of the people”. The Bill of Rights focuses on the rights of the people. The will of the majority is covered more by the bulk of the original constitution where the powers of government and ability to pay for it are enumerated. States and cities run much the same.

Over the years, what government can pay for has expanded. There is an interpretation that since you can collect funds you can spend them. As a result the power to spend money has expanded to cover more than the enumerated powers. You can spend on anything. Less than optimal. A problem even. The original founders for some reason did not mention a word about building airports, regulating flights, or going to the moon, yet we do those things. States and cities have even less enumerated powers. They are sovereign. There are no lists of what they can do generally.

I have thought of going back to the enumerated powers list, but the difference between the modern day and what the founding fathers thought of is a bit big. It would seem to require a constitutional convention, and we seem too divided for that.

But the basics is that the “will of the people” is determined by the majority. If you are in the minority on this, you cannot override the majority’s will. That just would not work.

Now some service provided by government are self funding. It is common to pay for town water by the gallon, and to pay for drivers licenses. You could set up a branch of government, similar to the Red Cross, which provides food and shelter for those in need. You could pay to fund this organization by volunteering funds. This could be done, but for the most part the sanctuary cities have not set it up that way.

Why America will not survive the decade.

[thomasglee]

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about having to pay for illegal immigrants (or for any other governmental social program).

The short form for democracy goes something like “the will of the majority checked by the rights of the people”. The Bill of Rights focuses on the rights of the people. The will of the majority is covered more by the bulk of the original constitution where the powers of government and ability to pay for it are enumerated. States and cities run much the same.

Over the years, what government can pay for has expanded. There is an interpretation that since you can collect funds you can spend them. As a result the power to spend money has expanded to cover more than the enumerated powers. You can spend on anything. Less than optimal. A problem even. The original founders for some reason did not mention a word about building airports, regulating flights, or going to the moon, yet we do those things. States and cities have even less enumerated powers. They are sovereign. There are no lists of what they can do generally.

I have thought of going back to the enumerated powers list, but the difference between the modern day and what the founding fathers thought of is a bit big. It would seem to require a constitutional convention, and we seem too divided for that.

But the basics is that the “will of the people” is determined by the majority. If you are in the minority on this, you cannot override the majority’s will. That just would not work.

Now some service provided by government are self funding. It is common to pay for town water by the gallon, and to pay for drivers licenses. You could set up a branch of government, similar to the Red Cross, which provides food and shelter for those in need. You could pay to fund this organization by volunteering funds. This could be done, but for the most part the sanctuary cities have not set it up that way.

Why America will not survive the decade.

You're right.

This quote from BB is very telling. He doesn't even know what kind of governing system (Constitutional Republic) we have....

But the basics is that the “will of the people” is determined by the majority. If you are in the minority on this, you cannot override the majority’s will. That just would not work.

[Cool Breeze]

We could have some common ground here as you brought up why the feds are so diseased and so many rights have been taken away, but the truth is that it's a waste of time discussing things with people who can't reason and aren't honest otherwise.

[FullMoon]

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/po ... n-00056246

"Almost 40 percent of long-distance freight ton-miles move on rail, more than any other mode of transportation. Trucking can’t possibly absorb all of that. A work stoppage would make our previous supply chain worries look like kid stuff. It could cause shortages and raise prices. And remember, harvest season is around the corner. Rail service disruptions over the last year have already had farmers on the brink of killing off their own livestock because the grain they use to feed their animals just hasn’t arrived. Food would rot in unmoving railcars and shelves would be empty."

We're just waiting for the final straw to break the Camel's back.

[Tom Mazanec]

I am afraid Putin will use Novichuk so the West will impose a no-fly zone and then Russia uses nukes making us use thermonukes…

[Bob Butler]

This quote from BB is very telling. He doesn't even know what kind of governing system (Constitutional Republic) we have....

But the basics is that the “will of the people” is determined by the majority. If you are in the minority on this, you cannot override the majority’s will. That just would not work.

Could you then provide a similar summary of your vision of a Constitutional Republic? You criticize without specifics or alternative.

[thomasglee]

This quote from BB is very telling. He doesn't even know what kind of governing system (Constitutional Republic) we have....

But the basics is that the “will of the people” is determined by the majority. If you are in the minority on this, you cannot override the majority’s will. That just would not work.

Could you then provide a similar summary of your vision of a Constitutional Republic? You criticize without specifics or alternative.

A constitutional, representative republic is not based on mob (majority) rule. You seem to believe we are a pure democracy when we are not. I shouldn't have to educate you on such matters.

[Bob Butler]

A constitutional, representative republic is not based on mob (majority) rule. You seem to believe we are a pure democracy when we are not. I shouldn't have to educate you on such matters.

My vision is of a representative democracy, the legislatures setting the law of the land, and individuals not having the authority to ignore the law. If the legislature in your vision does not determine the law, who does? Do individuals override the law?

[Bob Butler]

We could have some common ground here as you brought up why the feds are so diseased and so many rights have been taken away, but the truth is that it's a waste of time discussing things with people who can't reason and aren't honest otherwise.

As an example of a sanctuary city, I found a copy of the New York City charter. It seems they have a city council, with members elected by their many districts. It is the legislative body of the city, with enumerated powers, notably…

§ 28. Powers of council. a. The council in addition to all enumerated powers shall have power to adopt local laws which it deems appropriate, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this charter or with the constitution or laws of the United States or this state, for the good rule and government of the city; for the order, protection and government of persons and property; for the preservation of the public health, comfort, peace and prosperity of the city and its inhabitants; and to effectuate the purposes and provisions of this charter or of the other laws relating to the city.

So the council explicitly has the power to help those that need it.

Other than the right to control one’s own body, what examples of rights removed can you give?

I kind of believe rights have been invented, especially by the liberal courts of my youth. The right to control one’s own body and equality for the gay and lesbian communities make for fine rights, but rights should come or go with a constitutional amendment, not by the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. I believe these 20th century ideas were projected on the old founding fathers who had no such thoughts.

Do not confuse the ability to reason with the inability to understand a conflicting worldview. Being able to understand how other cultures think is an advantage. It is not an inability to reason. It is not an indication of dishonesty.

[Tom Mazanec]

Other than the right to control one’s own body, what examples of rights removed can you give?

One's own body, no. It is when that injures or kills another body (irregardless of location) that such a "right" has been removed, and only partially at that.