Guest Aluigi Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 time and time again I have proposed that the reason we have a government is for the general principles laid out in the Preamble of the Constitution. All I am saying is that when assesing what action the government should take, it should not be against any of the general value guidelines from the constitution. When arguing about a governmental policy in the United States I contend it is perfectly legitimate to say that the government should take the policy which best reflects the general principles and values the constitution was written for: [list] [*] to form a more perfect Union [*] establish Justice [*] insure domestic Tranquillity [*] provide for the common defence [*] promote the general Welfare [*] secure the Blessings of Liberty [/list] anyone wishing to contend this point can do so here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Long live the South!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 popepiusX-- don't get me started You know we in Texas have the legal right to succede ( not that the feds cared about thatlast time) still it is an option worth thinking about, I know a lot of Texan youth who don't think its sounds like a bad idea. so ppx where exactly do you live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 VA. Every state has the legal right to secede. Va even included it in the ratification papers, without objection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 yeah it was explicitly in our treaty( we didn't even get a popular vote) to join the Union along with our right to have a Navy and to divide into 5 states if we so choose ( thats not likely to happen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 23 2004, 01:28 AM'] yeah it was explicitly in our treaty( we didn't even get a popular vote) to join the Union along with our right to have a Navy and to divide into 5 states if we so choose ( thats not likely to happen). [/quote] Your articles of secession are a scandal though. They state that there is no law higher than the Consitution. P.S. Popular votes are overrrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 [quote]P.S. Popular votes are overrrated[/quote] No arguement there I am after all a fuedal monarchist not a democrate of any kind still I like it when people follow there own rules-- the US didn't do that not even back in 1845, if you won't follow your own rules then how can I trust you on any level. Personally I think voting in general should be restricted to very small groups only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 woah, thread hijack (not that i wasn't quite amused by your conversation i enjoy such conversations) but this is to debate what reason the United States itself defines as the puprose for its government's existence. i contend that these value principles are its purpose. people seem to have a problem with that and say the constitution is outdated when i make these claims (specifically in the arguments of whether the government ought to recognize and promote same sex unions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popestpiusx Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 My apologies, Aluigi. Back to the topic at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 22 2004, 10:07 PM'] time and time again I have proposed that the reason we have a government is for the general principles laid out in the Preamble of the Constitution. All I am saying is that when assesing what action the government should take, it should not be against any of the general value guidelines from the constitution. When arguing about a governmental policy in the United States I contend it is perfectly legitimate to say that the government should take the policy which best reflects the general principles and values the constitution was written for: [list] [*] to form a more perfect Union [*] establish Justice [*] insure domestic Tranquillity [*] provide for the common defence [*] promote the general Welfare [*] secure the Blessings of Liberty [/list]anyone wishing to contend this point can do so here. [/quote] The purpose of the goverment is to uphold these principles as well as to uphold the rest of the principles as outlined in the rest of the Constitution and its Amendments. I.e. it is as much the purpose of the government to ensure that no one under the age of 35 becomes President or ensure free exercise of religion as it is to establish justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 23 2004, 02:39 AM'] Personally I think voting in general should be restricted to very small groups only. [/quote] Like who? And how would we deem those worthy of voting and those who are not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amarkich Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) Carrie, I think we are moving from that topic back to the original, but we could start with all male landowners and get more specific from there (ultimately getting to a monarch, ideally). To address the real purpose of the thread, I do not think that those parts of the Constitution are (as) erroneous as others. edit: by the way, it seems that the only error is that they are incomplete because they fail to mention God, the Church, etc. Edited November 24, 2004 by amarkich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 24 2004, 03:46 PM'] Carrie, I think we are moving from that topic back to the original [/quote] sorry for being off topic [quote]but we could start with all male landowners and get more specific from there (ultimately getting to a monarch, ideally).[/quote] How exactly would starting with male landowners be ideal? I can see if you're talking about the past, but my question is for the here and now. Saying we'd allow male landowners to vote first makes no sense in this day and age. Just because a male owns land shouldn't automatically make him one of the elite who would be allowed to vote. What I'm asking Don John is how he would determine who should be eligible to vote [b]now[/b], in present day. What would be the criteria for the men and women of today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCrusader Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 23 2004, 01:22 AM'] VA. Every state has the legal right to secede. Va even included it in the ratification papers, without objection. [/quote] Everyone has a RIGHT to succeed?? What is this the Declaration of Indepence: we can throw off any government we don't want? That is ridiculous. The authority comes not from the people nor the subject but from God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conservativecatholic Posted November 24, 2004 Share Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Nov 23 2004, 12:11 AM'] popepiusX-- don't get me started You know we in Texas have the legal right to succede ( not that the feds cared about thatlast time) still it is an option worth thinking about, I know a lot of Texan youth who don't think its sounds like a bad idea. so ppx where exactly do you live? [/quote] I'm a proud Texan. I don't mind a bit to secede from the Union. The Republic of Texas would be the 5th wealthiest nation and the 7th highest military power on Earth. As a state that is predominantly conservative, Texas would illegalize abortion and defend the sanctity of marriage. God Bless Texas. Edited November 24, 2004 by conservativecatholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now