Guest Aluigi Posted November 23, 2004 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.
Don John of Austria Posted November 23, 2004 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?
popestpiusx Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 VA. Every state has the legal right to secede. Va even included it in the ratification papers, without objection.
Don John of Austria Posted November 23, 2004 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).
popestpiusx Posted November 23, 2004 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.
Don John of Austria Posted November 23, 2004 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.
Guest Aluigi Posted November 23, 2004 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)
popestpiusx Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 My apologies, Aluigi. Back to the topic at hand.
burnsspivey Posted November 24, 2004 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.
Carrie Posted November 24, 2004 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?
amarkich Posted November 24, 2004 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
Carrie Posted November 24, 2004 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?
CatholicCrusader Posted November 24, 2004 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.
conservativecatholic Posted November 24, 2004 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
conservativecatholic Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) [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 Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 [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 Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 [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 Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 [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 Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 (edited) [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
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