Offthemat Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 14 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: Members of the Republican party appointed by Republican presidents weren't Republicans??? "and they certainly were not originalist" YES THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU LMAO Originalism is a modern phenomenon that has no basis in our nation's history or founding. There is no line in the Constitution that says "This document is to be taken strictly according to its meaning at the time of its writing" or "Anything not explicitly mentioned in this document is unconstitutional." Originalism inserts a modern ideology back into a founding document that, by its very structure, is meant to be a living document, continually updated as needed. Why? Because obviously a document written PRE-INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION is not going to adequately address the issues of modernity. You’ve yet to learn that labeling people can be unreliable? Originalism has been practiced since the document was written, and overlaps with textualism. I’ve made none of the arguments you’ve expressed, and the Constitution has required zero amendments to deal with the Industrial Revolution because it addresses the policy of limited government and liberty, not tools. Modern ideology is the concept that describes it as a living document or a relic. In their wisdom, the authors, original and subsequent, strove to relay the concept without exacting limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Just now, Offthemat said: You’ve yet to learn that labeling people can be unreliable? Originalism has been practiced since the document was written, and overlaps with textualism. I’ve made none of the arguments you’ve expressed, and the Constitution has required zero amendments to deal with the Industrial Revolution because it addresses the policy of limited government and liberty, not tools. Modern ideology is the concept that describes it as a living document or a relic. In their wisdom, the authors, original and subsequent, strove to relay the concept without exacting limitations. gibberish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Offthemat said: You’ve yet to learn that labeling people can be unreliable? Originalism has been practiced since the document was written, and overlaps with textualism. I’ve made none of the arguments you’ve expressed, and the Constitution has required zero amendments to deal with the Industrial Revolution because it addresses the policy of limited government and liberty, not tools. Modern ideology is the concept that describes it as a living document or a relic. In their wisdom, the authors, original and subsequent, strove to relay the concept without exacting limitations. Can you quote the lines in the Constitution about limited government? (they don't exist) By the way, if you haven't already, everybody should read the Constitution! It's not a long document. It should only take a few minutes. You might be surprised by what is and isn't in there. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Edited February 7 by uncle bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: Can you quote the lines in the Constitution about limited government? (they don't exist) By the way, if you haven't already, everybody should read the Constitution! It's not a long document. It should only take a few minutes. You might be surprised by what is and isn't in there. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript Do you not comprehend the principle of the Bill of Rights? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 12 minutes ago, Offthemat said: Do you not comprehend the principle of the Bill of Rights? Oh, now we’re reading principles that aren’t explicitly stated into the text? I thought you were an originalist? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 I may have neglected to mention comprehensionist, believing it to be obvious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbrog Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Sometimes these arguments become so tiresome when people bog them down with ASSumptions and semantics. I have not read on here that anyone said, including me, there shouldn't have been and shouldn't be amendments to the constitution. What I hear people say is that the basis of it and the intent of it should be the first priority and changed, following the prescribed process to do so, instead of just throwing it out the window because of some political ideology and people thinking "it doesn't fit any longer". It does fit in its intent and shouldn't be changed without extreme vetting and interrogation. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Elite Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 This thread has definitely gone off the tracks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbrog Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Just now, Ohio Elite said: This thread has definitely gone off the tracks. Agreed...and I am sure I have contributed to it. Hard not responding some of UB's take on things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 7 Author Share Posted February 7 34 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: Can you quote the lines in the Constitution about limited government? (they don't exist) By the way, if you haven't already, everybody should read the Constitution! It's not a long document. It should only take a few minutes. You might be surprised by what is and isn't in there. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript It’s why they made the constitution in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrestlingRasta Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 10 minutes ago, Ohio Elite said: This thread has definitely gone off the tracks. there are about four threads that could be joined together... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jross Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 5 hours ago, uncle bernard said: Does this mean you support full drug legalization? No drinking age? Drunk driving? What about dumping chemicals in water sources? Child labor? Roads? Open borders? Abolishing the police? The military? I can keep going forever. “Big Government” is a meaningless term. The government should provide the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life, as its primary purpose is to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. You, me, and citizens should be free to make our own choices and live according to our values and preferences as long as we do not harm others or infringe upon other's rights. What is the fewest amount of regulations and funding required to do so? You can use that last statement to answer your questions. Drunk driving endangers others and should be regulated. Closed borders, police, military, etc., are all helpful to protect our rights and freedoms... clearly, government support deserves my taxes. In contrast, big government does to you and me what a nanny does to the children she rears; controls our personal choices for our own good. Censors what information we can read. Vomit. I get into a thinker's dilemma through an example like this. Nanny McGovernment bans your ability to eat fast food. This is an intrusion on your personal choice. Vomit. But regarding your choice of diet, your choice has indirect consequences on me, such as increased healthcare costs due to obesity-related illnesses. Given enough evidence behind regulation, my small government mind could get behind a fast-food tax or restrictions on marketing unhealthy food. Like all the 'sugar added' and 'seed oils' are secretly wrecking our health and inflating insurance costs. The least government regulation required to protect against rising health care costs (my security) is okay by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lipdrag Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 hours ago, red viking said: News flash. We cant go back to 1776. No way it can work in a modern and integrated society. Founding fathers are probably turning in their graves in response to the people that fail to apply the constitution to modern circumstances I suspect that any grave turning has to do in response to the people that fail to apply the constitution at all - let alone apply it to modern and integrated circumstances. If modern integrateds want to change the constitution for modern integrated circumstances then let them amend it. Amending is the mechanism for applying the constitution to modern integratedness. Ignoring it like we've done since the early 1900's is not a valid way to apply it to modern integrated circumstances. What modern integrated circumstance is so urgent that it requires a Constitutional Amendment that can be passed? What article of the constitution blocks modern integrateds from life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 7 hours ago, uncle bernard said: Does this mean you support full drug legalization? No drinking age? Drunk driving? What about dumping chemicals in water sources? Child labor? Roads? Open borders? Abolishing the police? The military? I can keep going forever. “Big Government” is a meaningless term. I love it when a know nothing goes for the full Monty like this. It shows both lack of class, knowledge, temperance, and civility. I'm surprised teen bullying and personal pronouns did not make the list. JRoss responded in a fair minded way that makes this look amateurish. Good job Uncle. You lost the argument by going unhinged. mspart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offthemat Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, Lipdrag said: What article of the constitution blocks modern integrateds from life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Income tax, mostly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrestlingRasta Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 13 minutes ago, Offthemat said: Income tax, mostly. Fun fact: the first income tax brackets were 3% and 5%. Good Lord. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 The good ole days. mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) 1 hour ago, jross said: The government should provide the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life, as its primary purpose is to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens. You, me, and citizens should be free to make our own choices and live according to our values and preferences as long as we do not harm others or infringe upon other's rights. What is the fewest amount of regulations and funding required to do so? You can use that last statement to answer your questions. Drunk driving endangers others and should be regulated. Closed borders, police, military, etc., are all helpful to protect our rights and freedoms... clearly, government support deserves my taxes. In contrast, big government does to you and me what a nanny does to the children she rears; controls our personal choices for our own good. Censors what information we can read. Vomit. I get into a thinker's dilemma through an example like this. Nanny McGovernment bans your ability to eat fast food. This is an intrusion on your personal choice. Vomit. But regarding your choice of diet, your choice has indirect consequences on me, such as increased healthcare costs due to obesity-related illnesses. Given enough evidence behind regulation, my small government mind could get behind a fast-food tax or restrictions on marketing unhealthy food. Like all the 'sugar added' and 'seed oils' are secretly wrecking our health and inflating insurance costs. The least government regulation required to protect against rising health care costs (my security) is okay by me. 54 minutes ago, mspart said: I love it when a know nothing goes for the full Monty like this. It shows both lack of class, knowledge, temperance, and civility. I'm surprised teen bullying and personal pronouns did not make the list. JRoss responded in a fair minded way that makes this look amateurish. Good job Uncle. You lost the argument by going unhinged. mspart he did! he engaged the questions i asked in good faith, just like i asked them in good faith. you could learn from his example. it’s called hyperbole. by pointing to the extremes it shows the obvious logic behind them. why is drunk driving illegal? because it’s dangerous! obviously! but that means it’s okay for the government to regulate things that are dangerous, so now you have to apply that standard to every situation. speeding? running a light? rolling stop? illegal parking? there is a line where you have to say no that’s enough and as much as people like to pretend that line is clearly laid out in the constitution, it’s not! we, as a society, decide where the line is and that line is changing all the time. just saying government = bad and the more government the more bad it is is silly. we all take for granted the things the government does without realizing at one point the government didn’t do those things! it took “big government” advocates to change things and make all our lives better. it’s not the size of the government that matters. it’s the structure and the actions. are they taking care of public infrastructure so we can function as a society? are they taking care of the environment so we can be healthy? are they providing educational and development opportunities so our citizens can reach their full potential? are they responsive to public will? are they transparent with the public? are they respecting the public’s law-given rights as private citizens? etc.. Edited February 7 by uncle bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, Lipdrag said: I suspect that any grave turning has to do in response to the people that fail to apply the constitution at all - let alone apply it to modern and integrated circumstances. If modern integrateds want to change the constitution for modern integrated circumstances then let them amend it. Amending is the mechanism for applying the constitution to modern integratedness. Ignoring it like we've done since the early 1900's is not a valid way to apply it to modern integrated circumstances. What modern integrated circumstance is so urgent that it requires a Constitutional Amendment that can be passed? What article of the constitution blocks modern integrateds from life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? it would certainly be nice if congress did its job and legislated. instead, both parties have kicked much of their governing responsibility to the courts. i think we all agree that’s a problem. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an abstract concept. a woman might say the overturning of roe v wade forces her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and negatively affect her life. i think the government’s ability to spy on me affects my liberty. the government not giving a million dollars affects my happiness. doesn’t mean i have a right to it. the application of broad statements of rights in the constitution is not black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 7 Author Share Posted February 7 The psycho babble is real Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 14 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: it would certainly be nice if congress did its job and legislated. instead, both parties have kicked much of their governing responsibility to the courts. i think we all agree that’s a problem. Agreed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is an abstract concept. Agreed sort of. Most concepts are abstract and that is what differs us from lesser beings. We can think in abstract. However, you ask anyone if life, liberty, their pursuit of happiness is abstract, they will most likely say those are absolute. Depends on your point of view I suppose. a woman might say the overturning of roe v wade forces her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and negatively affect her life. Her choices have forced her to that situation, not some abstract law. Make a different choice and avoid the situation. There are plenty of ways to do that in these modern times. i think the government’s ability to spy on me affects my liberty. Agreed. the government not giving a million dollars affects my happiness. doesn’t mean i have a right to it. Agreed. the application of broad statements of rights in the constitution is not black and white. These are not found in the Constitution you Constitutional Scholar. They are in the Declaration of Independence. There are no broad statements of rights in the articles of the Constitution, there are some enumerated in the Amendments to the Constitution. Please don't lecture us anymore about how you know so much. You just proved you don't. The Constitution is for the self governed. It is not a compact that the government will give you things. It is a compact that the government will allow you to live your life with liberty in your pursuit of happiness. Those were ideals listed in the Declaration of Independence and then after the War and Articles of Confederacy, were guaranteed in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights for starters. There were states that would not sign unless such amendments were added. When all agreed the original Constitution was ratified. Then the Bill of Rights came. In fact, there were 17 original amendments that were whittled down to 12 amendments, only 10 of them made it to ratification. John Adams famously said - “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” There's your lesson for today. mspart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jross Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 19 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: he did! you engaged the questions i asked in good faith, just like i asked them in good faith. you could learn from his example. it’s called hyperbole. by pointing to the extremes it shows the obvious logic behind them. why is drunk driving illegal? because it’s dangerous! obviously! but that means it’s okay for the government to regulate things that are dangerous, so now you have to apply that standard to every situation. speeding? running a light? rolling stop? illegal parking? there is a line where you have to say no that’s enough and as much as people like to pretend that line is clearly laid out in the constitution, it’s not! we, as a society, decide where the line is and that line is changing all the time. just saying government = bad and the more government the more bad it is is silly. we all take for granted the things the government does without realizing at one point the government didn’t do those things! it took “big government” advocates to change things and make all our lives better. it’s not the size of the government that matters. it’s the structure and the actions. are they taking care of public infrastructure so we can function as a society? are they taking care of the environment so we can be healthy? are they providing educational and development opportunities so our citizens can reach their full potential? are they responsive to public will? are they transparent with the public? are they respecting the public’s law-given rights as private citizens? etc.. Government overreach, like issuing tickets to meet quotas and raise funds undermines public trust and erodes our liberties. The notion that big government inherently improves lives is misguided. It often leads to inefficiency and encroachment on individual freedoms. We must remain vigilant against allowing the government to grow too large and intrusive. It's like a funny smell that creeps in unnoticed until it's overwhelming. Examples of government censorship and information monitoring, particularly during the 2020 election and the COVID-19 pandemic, are alarming. They violate free speech and transparency. The current discussion by the EU to block Tucker from traveling to interview Putin is unacceptable. Wasteful spending exacerbates these issues. Adding tens of thousands of IRS agents and spending millions on psychics for foreign threat insights are prime examples of bureaucratic bloat and misuse of taxpayer money. Frivolous projects, like constructing unnecessary golf courses on military bases, highlight government excess. The size of government directly impacts our freedoms and the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. We must advocate for a smaller, more accountable government prioritizing individual liberty and responsible spending. Are you following the daily loan forgiveness stories on Reddit? There was a recent one where a nurse's $500,000 loans were forgiven. It's a misuse of taxpayer funds and undermines personal responsibility. We need policies that empower individuals and promote accountability, not taxpayer-funded handouts. These questions must be answered before expanding the government or giving money to the government. Compared to what? At what cost? What is the hard evidence in support of this? How do we measure progress and success? Given our country's debts will hurt us all, we need a leader to cut this government down. The Pareto principle says the majority of citizens won't even notice other than more funds in their wallets and the freedom to live how they want. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatWhiteNorth Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Lengthy reply by jross to a solidly dumb thread that is worse than the previous dumb posts. Either jross's account has been hacked, or he's unimaginably dumb. I'm thinking the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatWhiteNorth Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 This site has been hacked I'm out. All of you should be, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrestlingRasta Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 2 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said: This site has been hacked I'm out. All of you should be, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katelyn Bell Montini Catholic, Illinois Class of 2025 Committed to Aurora (Women) Projected Weight: 103
Michael Esteban Marist, Illinois Class of 2025 Committed to Michigan State Projected Weight: 133, 141
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