The Purpose of the United States Government

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 22 2004, 11:32 PM'] Long live the South!!!! [/quote]
I'm a true American patriot who loves this nation; however, I believe that the Confederate States of America would have been a better model for democracy than the bureaucracy in Washington we have today. The South shall rise again!

Edited November 24, 2004 by conservativecatholic

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 24 2004, 04:25 PM'] 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. [/quote]
bump PSPX

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Nov 24 2004, 04:33 PM'] I'm a true American patriot who loves this nation; however, I believe that the Confederate States of America would have been a better model for democracy than the bureaucracy in Washington we have today. The South shall rise again! [/quote]
conservativeCatholic,

Nice to see you around again.

Why exactly, may I ask, would be want a democracy?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 24 2004, 04:25 PM'] 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. [/quote]
I did not say everyone. I said every state. There is a huge difference. If the Union was freely entered into by the states after the Revolution (the merits of which are quite debatable), then they may freely leave it as well. This is not the Dec. of Independence. It's the way the country was set up under the constitution. For better or for worse, that's the way it is. When the colonies rebelled, they did so independently. They did not do so as one nation. When they won (or lost, depending on how you look at it) what was left was 13 independent states, with no federal government to speak of. When the Constitution was drafted each state was perfectly free to join the union or reject it. Several states included in their ratification papers a clause that explicitly maintained their right to leave that union should it ever become necessary (VA and NY were two of them). The equivalent of a federal government at the time did not object and in fact, it was viewed as almost obvious.

The way to look at thgis is like a treaty. Both parties agreed to the terms of this treaty. Lincoln (one of the top five worst presidents in history) violated the terms of that treaty by attempting to force the southern states. This is not about questioning from whom the authority is coming. You and I both agree on that. What I am saying here, and defending here, is simply a matter of history.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 24 2004, 05:44 PM'] Lincoln (one of the top five worst presidents in history) violated the terms of that treaty by attempting to force the southern states. [/quote]
I absolutely agree. Abraham Lincioln was a horrible president who viloated the US Constitution and everything it stood for. Has anyone heard of Lincoln's 13th Amendment? In the amendment, Lincoln stated that if the South were to rejoin the Union, a 75% tariff would be placed on Southern goods; however, slavery would forever be legal in the U.S.. Lincoln was anything but an abolitionist. He was a selfish man who failed to defend the rights of millions! Long live the South!

Edited November 24, 2004 by conservativecatholic

[Guest Aluigi]

burnsspivey, may I first mention I am disgusted by your avatar, children are a blessing from God and the heathens of today who think they are burdersome do not deserve their own life for making infanticide (within the womb) legal. abortion should be a capital-punishment offence. but that is for anyother thread, just thought i'd express myself over your disgusting avatar.

anyway, i really don't think that your statement is exactly correct, i see these as the basic principles the government was established to ensure, everything else is just different ways it runs. ammendments are just trying to make sure the government more closely follows these principles. there could be an ammendment to say the president should be allowed to be 30 years old. there cannot be an ammendment to say that the U.S. goverment should not promote the general welfare without significantly changing the nature of the United States.

these are the reasons for the government to exist as defined by the Constitution. Therefore, when debating any policy the government should adopt (such as the recognition of same sex unions), it is perfectly prudent to ask and debate about whether or not that policy is going to further any of these founding principles. if it is not, it should not be a policy of the United States Government.

[popestpiusx]

bump to CC

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 24 2004, 06:44 PM'] I did not say everyone. I said every state. There is a huge difference. If the Union was freely entered into by the states after the Revolution (the merits of which are quite debatable), then they may freely leave it as well. This is not the Dec. of Independence. It's the way the country was set up under the constitution. For better or for worse, that's the way it is. When the colonies rebelled, they did so independently. They did not do so as one nation. When they won (or lost, depending on how you look at it) what was left was 13 independent states, with no federal government to speak of. When the Constitution was drafted each state was perfectly free to join the union or reject it. Several states included in their ratification papers a clause that explicitly maintained their right to leave that union should it ever become necessary (VA and NY were two of them). The equivalent of a federal government at the time did not object and in fact, it was viewed as almost obvious.

The way to look at thgis is like a treaty. Both parties agreed to the terms of this treaty. Lincoln (one of the top five worst presidents in history) violated the terms of that treaty by attempting to force the southern states. This is not about questioning from whom the authority is coming. You and I both agree on that. What I am saying here, and defending here, is simply a matter of history. [/quote]
"Several states included in their ratification papers a clause that explicitly maintained their right to leave that union should it ever become necessary (VA and NY were two of them). "

I think only those States would have the right to succeed (as well as Texas, who when added later was given such a right, at least I have read that).

The USA is a bastard in the first place, though. The masons who founded it (and the modernist "protestants") had no right to do so, as they based it on the "philosophies" (if you can even call them that) of Locke and the other "enlightened" thinkers. Wherefore, since the government is illegitimate in the first place, I suppose every State has a right and duty to return to the country under which they should and must be subject: England.

[J.R.D]

First off... Is there really a purpose?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Nov 27 2004, 12:11 AM']

The USA is a bastard in the first place, though. The masons who founded it (and the modernist "protestants") had no right to do so, as they based it on the "philosophies" (if you can even call them that) of Locke and the other "enlightened" thinkers. Wherefore, since the government is illegitimate in the first place, I suppose every State has a right and duty to return to the country under which they should and must be subject: England. [/quote]
Two hundred and thirty years after the fact, this argument is quite irrelevant. Whether we agree or not (and that is certainlty an interesting discussion) we have what we have. There are many nations founded out of others, including great European states. Where do we draw the line of illigitimacy?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 24 2004, 07:21 PM'] burnsspivey, may I first mention I am disgusted by your avatar, children are a blessing from God and the heathens of today who think they are burdersome do not deserve their own life for making infanticide (within the womb) legal. abortion should be a capital-punishment offence. but that is for anyother thread, just thought i'd express myself over your disgusting avatar. [/quote]
Well, you're entitled to an opinion, asinine or not. Anyone who won't admit that children are a burden either has none or isn't a primary caregiver. They may be a blessing as well, but that doesn't remove the burden. Personally I think the avatar is amusing and is far less offensive than others that I considered.


[quote]anyway, i really don't think that your statement is exactly correct, i see these as the basic principles the government was established to ensure, everything else is just different ways it runs.  ammendments are just trying to make sure the government more closely follows these principles.  there could be an ammendment to say the president should be allowed to be 30 years old.  there cannot be an ammendment to say that the U.S. goverment should not promote the general welfare without significantly changing the nature of the United States.

these are the reasons for the government to exist as defined by the Constitution.  Therefore, when debating any policy the government should adopt (such as the recognition of same sex unions), it is perfectly prudent to ask and debate about whether or not that policy is going to further any of these founding principles.  if it is not, it should not be a policy of the United States Government.[/quote]

On the Preamble:
''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them.''

You are kind of right, but still a little off. They are meaningful to the discussion, but only in that they are general guidelines. The specifics have to come from the rest of the document.

[Guest Aluigi]

but there's no specifics defined for gay marriage, so we see if it's within the general guidelines. i have an extensive argument that it is not.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Nov 29 2004, 04:58 PM'] but there's no specifics defined for gay marriage, so we see if it's within the general guidelines. i have an extensive argument that it is not. [/quote]
Are we really going to open this topic here too? Shouldn't this be over in the "a thought on..." area?

[amarkich]

Aluigi, do you believe that the Constitution as a whole, including the Amendments can be faithfully accepted as the "Supreme law of the land" as it so states? Also, do you believe in the Declaration of Independence?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Nov 29 2004, 06:19 PM'] Aluigi, do you believe that the Constitution as a whole, including the Amendments can be faithfully accepted as the "Supreme law of the land" as it so states? Also, do you believe in the Declaration of Independence? [/quote]
You'd have to be a fool not to believe in them. I've seen them both with my own eyes.