GhostWriter16
Deity
That people focus more on "Under God" than on "Indivisible" shows how far our country has fallen
The Real Problem with the US Pledge of Allegiance
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
That people focus more on "Under God" than on "Indivisible" shows how far our country has fallen
Zack
99% hot gas
It all went downhill after we told the south "no slaves"That people focus more on "Under God" than on "Indivisible" shows how far our country has fallen
Yep, we shouldn't have fallen so far as to put "Under God" in there in the first place.That people focus more on "Under God" than on "Indivisible" shows how far our country has fallen
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
That people focus more on "Under God" than on "Indivisible" shows how far our country has fallen
No, it shows how little respect you hold for the Constitution, which established the courts which say secession was (and probably is) illegal.
GhostWriter16
Deity
The courts are part of the Federal government, and therefore a mostly useless check and balance that mainly exists to rubber-stamp government tyranny and give them legitimacy that they shouldn't have. I don't oppose their existance, SCOTUS occasionally does the right thing and the government sometimes actually backs off (Not always, see Andrew Jackson, and sometimes they rule too late, see Abraham Lincoln's despotism), but its clearly not enough.
I don't care if you think I disrespect the constitution though (Although the Constitution does not give nine guys on the bench the right to ban secession, the tenth amendment makes it automatically legal.) My views have developed to the point where my strict constructionism is purely pragmatic as a way to argue for as little Federal intervention as possible in the legal framework we have. I think the constittution is clearly wrong on several points, and "Implied Powers" have created plenty more (Let alone the blatantly unconstitutional things that can't possibly be defended by ANY constitutional interpretation, such as warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, or the war in Iraq). If I could wave a wand and replace the constitution with the Articles of Confederation, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I don't care if you think I disrespect the constitution though (Although the Constitution does not give nine guys on the bench the right to ban secession, the tenth amendment makes it automatically legal.) My views have developed to the point where my strict constructionism is purely pragmatic as a way to argue for as little Federal intervention as possible in the legal framework we have. I think the constittution is clearly wrong on several points, and "Implied Powers" have created plenty more (Let alone the blatantly unconstitutional things that can't possibly be defended by ANY constitutional interpretation, such as warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions, or the war in Iraq). If I could wave a wand and replace the constitution with the Articles of Confederation, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Have you considered moving to Somalia?
They're pretty free of this tyranny you speak of.
I don't think the people are enslaved in Somalia.
GhostWriter16
Deity
No, it went downhill after the south was told "You will stay in the Union and we will murder hundreds of thousands of people in order to ensure such."
"No slaves" was just a pleasant side effect of Lincolnian tyranny.
No
I like first world infrastructure
No
I like first world infrastructure
So wait
you want to reap the benefits of a centrally structured federal government
but at the same time hope for its destruction and overthrow?
What?
You are not a strict constructionist. Not even close. For example, you read several infringements into the 2nd Amendment that are not supported at all from the text.
Berzerker
Deity
and i agree with the objection to "indivisible", secession is a right and this nation was founded upon it
That wasn't legal either.
Zack
99% hot gas
They were colonies, not equals.
No, it went downhill after the south was told "You will stay in the Union and we will murder hundreds of thousands of people in order to ensure such."
"No slaves" was just a pleasant side effect of Lincolnian tyranny.
No
I like first world infrastructure
Infrastructure you want to steal because you refuse to pay for it.
Zack
99% hot gas
but Cutlass, tax is theft
GhostWriter16
Deity
I don't really object to the government spending money on infrastructure. I object to it spending money murdering people both overseas and at home, on massive redistribution of wealth, and on cronyist bailouts.
That said, the fact that we have good infrastructure is not a direct product of government intervention either. Its a product of the resources we have. If the government didn't produce something there was a demand for, the market would produce it.
Also, the fact that I think taxes are far too unnecessarily high doesn't mean I'm going to cheat on said taxes.
You're technically right. of course, I don't support any of those restrictions being Federal, and there's really only one exception (Past history of violent crime) not several, but you are technically right.
Considering that the constitution does allow for the execution of those people though, I find it somewhat odd that a strict constructionist position would object to taking away gun rights from felons but not taking away their life.
That wasn't really the Founders' fault, since they didn't intend for the Bill of Rights to check the state governments, only the central government. Of course, I think the Founders were wrong on that point, and the 14th amendment rightfully changed it, but it did leave a little problem with the second amendment.
I'll just say this, I would support a constitutional amendment that specifically defined what crimes are "Violent crimes", allowed STATE level governments to regulate the purchase of firarms by those people who committed said crimes, explicitly denied the right of any level of government to regulate firearms for anyone else, and specifically defined "Arms" as "Firearms."
There is a demand for you to stop posting, yet the market has not produced that yet.
Zack
99% hot gas
Goodfella
Showing results for
That people focus more on "Under God" than on "Indivisible" shows how far our country has fallen
How far has this country fallen? When has anyone ever cared about the word "indivisible?"
Berzerker
Deity
rights are equal and they are superior moral claims that dont depend on what a law says
Similar threads
