Asmodean:
Judges do not decide what is right or wrong. They decide what is legal and what is not.
Someone needs to decide what is right and wrong. I do not think that you will find much support for your supreme emperor campaign. So you should decide who you think is quallified.
PEACE
Without trying to turn this into a slavery discussion, I think that you should really read up on the circumstances leading up to the Civil War.
The southern states secession was not covered anywhere in the Constitution, nor in any other document of government. They decided to seceed regardless of any official government mandate.
To suggest that allowing the House of Representatives to abolish slavery would have prevented the war is ludicrous. The southern states believed that they, not any majority, had the right to determine the legal policies within their borders.
As for not believing in the tyranny of the majority, I’m going to go ahead and make a psychic prediction that you are not an African-American. If you were, you see, you, or your parents, would have lived through the 1950’s and 60’s and seen first hand the fight for civil rights.
The idea that the Founders were opposed to government itself is, in a word, ASININE!
The Founders were realists, which means they were distrustful of people. In the words of James Madison (who wrote the Constitution, after all:
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to rule over men, no constraints upon government would ne necessary. But in devising a system of government, the great difficulty lies in this: we must first enable the government to control the people, and then enable it to control itself.”
COnfession: I haven’t read “The Federalist” in several years, so my quote is not exact (my memory isn’t photographic). But I have conveyed Madison’s meaning exactly.
Madison knew that government was necessary because people are motivated by self interest, greed, and sin (Madison was a conventional Christian, even if many other founders were not). And, like most of the Founders, he feared that the people would act hastily, motivated by the passions of the moment, and would force the government to pass all kinds of irresponsible laws, without taking the time to think about them. Thus, Madison felt that it should be very DIFFICULT for the government to make drastic changes, or to take bold steps.
Both leftists AND conservatives can agree with Madison on this point, though their reasons would differ greatly. Leftists should look at failure of the anti-flag burning Amendment, and thank their lucky stars that it’s so difficult to change the Constitution. Conservatives should look at the failure of the ERA and feel the same way.
Passionate people pushed for those Amendments… but because amending the COnstitution is a long, arduous process, it gives people time to cool down and think about possible repercussions.
The Founders knew that ordinary people can be rash and foolish. That’s why they need government to control them. But since the government is, ultimately, run by people who can be EQUALLY rash and foolish, checks and balances are called for.
2sense
There is a differnce between believing in big government and not believing in government at all. Furthermore, there is a difference in not believing in central government, and not believing in government at all. Keep in mind that at the time of the Revolution, state governments were quite
well established institutions, and many people considered another government on top of governments that were already working to be superfluous.
Sure, it’s created problems. It’s also solved them. You haven’t done much to establish that the former category is larger than the latter.
What do you mean by “unarguably”? Most Southerners considered the decision pro-freedom.
Do really think that if the Supreme Court had voted just on the basis of what would be best in that case, they would have reached a decision more agreeable to you? Do you really want our civil freedoms resting on the goodwill of nine people in black robes, rather than on clearly stated rules? How you can prefer the former over the latter is beyond me. Perhaps you have an excess of optimism in the human race.
We need many institutions in our country: a legislature to pass laws, a justice system to interpret them, and police force to enforce them, etc. If every single one of these institutions considered themselves to have the right to make up new rules at will, we’d have anarchy. How would you feel if a cop came up to you on Sunday and arrested you for not being in Church? You protest that there’s no law requiring you to be in church, but the cop syas “I have no concern for the law. What matters is what’s right and what’s wrong”. If you want to live in that sort of country, I guess that’s your right. But I wouldn’t.
What’s with the subjunctive mood?
Any evidence to support your belief that the majority were against slavery? Any at all?
Now that’s just ridiculous. You really think that if the Federal Government had declared slavery illegal, the South would have just said “All right then, I guess we’ll just do whatever you tell us to”???
But how do you define that? There were more whites then blacks 150 years ago, so that means slavery helped more people than it harmed. So does that make it right?
Not the government. The moment the government declares itself to be the source of Right and Wrong, any “protection” of the government becomes defensible. After all, if the government is Right, that means that everyone that disagrees with the government is Wrong, and the government can use Any Means Necessary to shut them up. Once it becomes inconceivable to the government that there is such a thing as legitimate dissent, totalitarianism can’t be far off.
matt_mcl
Does the US compare favorably in all areas with Denmark? Of course not. Does Denmark compare favorably in all areas with the US? Of course not. What is your point?
That was meant as a rhetorical question. Sorry if I was unclear. I said that I believed that the government is doing it’s best to help the people in the next sentence.
That should be
A new national motto to replace “In God We Trust” - “We’re Better than Cambodia.”
The trouble with this: “Having a government do what the majority thinks is “right” is the basis of democracy. Who should decide what is “right” if not The People?” is that the People can and will decide that some very bad things are “right.” Surely you’ve seen some examples throughout history where the majority has done evil to the minority. The fact that they were in the majority did not make it right.
“Someone needs to decide what is right and wrong.” People need to decide this for themselves, not for anyone else; this is what freedom is. Some may decide that it is right to hurt others; that is why laws (and a consitution to declare the principles on which the laws are based) are needed.
As to governments existing to solve the People’s problems, well, there are problems and there are problems. Things like national defense and protection of citizens’ basic rights are the problems it should be taking care of. That’s why slavery was wrong - people’s basic rights are abridged. It’s not because the majority thought it was wrong. If it was wrong for that reason, then it would become right if the majority changed its collective mind.
JDeMobray:
For an example of my understanding (or lack thereof) you can look here.
My contention in this thread is that empowering the states in the 1st place helped lead to war.
I would have a stronger respect for your psychic powers if I did not clarify my appearance in my profile. However, if you are making a referance to a previous statement of mine then: 
And thanks for reading that thread.
I have the utmost respect for those who sacrificed during the Civil Rights Movement. I also am aware that racism has NOT been on a steady decline since the end of the Civil War. In fact, a case could be made that America is more racist today than it was 125 years ago.
IIRC it was the federal government(specificly LBJ and the Warren Court) who stepped in in some cases of extreme abuses by state governments. As you say, I was not around. Let me ask you a question about it. Would you rather have had to deal with LBJ or Lester Maddox?
My question here is this. If the people are not quallified to decide right and wrong, who is?
peace
You’re absolutely right. If the US Constitution hadn’t given States so much power, the States never would have joined the Union, and the Revolutionary War wouldn’t have happened.
No one. In a democracy, the will of the people decides what is legal. It does not decide what is right.
Just got to wade in here. Just got to.
I think the People should insist on it. You know who REALLY believed in government? People like Hitler and Stalin.
This is nonsensical. Of course they believed in government. If not, why on Earth would they have created one?
I decide what’s right and wrong for me. You decide what’s right and wrong for you. Government should only intrude when our rights and wrongs directly conflict; i.e., you think it would be right to blow up my house.
Also, you might be interested to know what Libertarians think about campaign finance laws–they’re an attack on us:
1)Limiting individual contributions makes it very hard to grow a party. It takes money for a Libertarian to spread awareness of his/her campaign. However, without many people, we can’t collect much a little at a time. A few Libertarians could help more, but are not allowed to. If we could raise more money, we could spread more awareness and get more votes, maybe even national press coverage. Who do you think is being hurt worse by these laws, big-money contributors to Democrats/Republicans, or us little guys?
2) Disclosure laws allow for political retribution. If I am elected, I can check and see that you contributed to my opponent, and use my power to punish you. Why do you think so many “big money” contributors give to both parties?
etc. You can learn more at http://www.lp.org/ http://www.harrybrowne2000.org/
In other words, don’t assume that, because you have decided that something is obviously right, that it is. If it was that obvious, then even our dysfunctional system would eventually figure it out.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
Er, that’s two separate URL’s. Sorry.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.
DUDE! Throw me a wink when you do that. I was terribly offended until I realised you were refering to my “registered Jackass” statement.
I agree with your assesment of the FF. I don’t, however, agree with their ideas. The contradiction of building a democracy based on fear of the people is what my thread title is all about.
A few points.
I believe that we do have a government that controls The People. I would rather have the reverse.
What is wrong with “ordinary people”. Why are they not to be trusted?
1 thing that people fail to understand about flexible governments.
If it is easy to make rash and foolish mistakes, it is just as easy to undue them.
Salaam
The Ryan:
On a personal note, I wish you would write smaller posts. If you have many ideas, then please post them separately. I will still try to answer your posts if they are long. But sometimes I get kicked out and have to start over. Thank you for your replies, however you structure them.
I am aware of these differences. The FF were creating a central government. My statement can be read as being about lowest common denominator central government. The FF limited the scope of their government as much as possible considering the needs of the day. This makes it extremely difficult to deal with new challenges.
I am assuming that “Revolution” is supposed to read “Constitution”. I am also assuming that by “people” you are refering to the at least some of the FF.
If this is so, then my answer would be; Perhaps we shouldn’t have picked regional powerbrokers to set up the central government. If not, let me know.
You misunderstand my intent. I am not seeking to prove my beliefs. My intent is less ambitious. I merely seek to defend them.
I am speaking in the present tense here.
I want neither. I want our civil liberties resting on a legislature that I can vote out if it becomes unresponsive. And I don’t want my legislature to be subject to review by people I DON’T vote for, who then decide what people long dead might have thought on the subject. I hope this explains my “Forums which do not…” quote you commented on as well. Also, I believe this covers my legislative branch statement you quoted later in your post.
BTW- I don’t understand your “subjunctive mood” comment. Probably because I don’t know what that means.
Nary a 1. Notice the “if”. But I got this from somewhere. And since you said “Any at all”, I will expect you to accept my cite. If I can find it.
Once again, notice the “ifs”. I am not speaking about the 1850’s as they actually were.
Your conclusion is incorrect. There were many more Blacks and non-slaveowning Whites than there were slaveowners.
I am sorry. This was misleading. I meant it in this context; Someone needs to decide which responses to problems are effective and fair. Example: Is the proposed trade bill the “right or wrong” response to the current economic situation?
Well, I believe I have responded to all of your points. Please consider my request that you write shorter posts. I look forward to your replies.
Peace
JDeMobray:
Oh sure. You trick me into answering a rhetorical question, then claim to have answered it yourself! Why should I believe you? You are a sneaky, back stabbing… 
Just kidding. No sweat, man.
I hope to hear from you about my ideas.
Well, that’s it for tonite. More tomorrow.
Uh…how do you figure the government controls the people? Silly me, I always thought we lived in a democratic society. You ever hear of a little thing called referendums and recalls? Umm…does voting ring a bell?
So what kind of government would you like 2Sense? Hitler decided what was Right and Wrong in Germany, would you like to live under a ruler like that?
Right and Wrong has nothing to do with the American Government, and the very fact that there is a seperation of church and state will make it so that the government is never about being right and wrong. I think people’s face in the court system is pretty naive. Don’t get me wrong, I love the courts. I plan on being a lawyer…but the Judicial system has huge gaping holes in it specifically designed to protect the few innocent people who are wrongly accused. Remember, the Government is NOT what controls the people. You want to live in a society like that, move to China.
If the government passes a law you do not feel to be morally right, you have the power of the vote, and you can protest with passive resistance and civil disobediance.
The FF didn’t believe in government? What type of government are you referring to? Obviously they didn’t believe in a Fascist government or a dictatorship. Good Old John Adams thought we should have a monarchy, and was known as King John, thank God he was in the minority huh?
The Constitution was written and designed the way it is for a purpose, which has already been stated in this thread by somebody.
Hmm, I have good arguements that I cannot articulate right now cuz it’s so late…maybe I oughtta go to bed.
“The bitch, oh the bitch, the bitch is back…I’m a bitch cuz I’m better then you, it’s the way that I move
The things that I do…” Elton John
“People try to tell me thoughts they cannot defend…” The Moody Blues
“To start, press any key. Where’s the any key?” Homer Simpson.
K, I’ve got two minutes to write this, then it’s off to school, so here I go.
Not true! In their eyes, matters of legality * are * right and wrong. I tend to agree, I mean, they have to go by the constitution. Because they abided by the law in that situation, they were upholding the moral standard of a code of laws, which has bound nations to a ruler since Hamurabi’s time. The decision itslef might have been one that we don’t like, but it is unavoidable. If they let Dred Scott go free, they would lose thier authorty as an unbiased force responsible only to the law.
The supreme court exist to check the other two branches, as well as to provide ultimate “executive decisions” power over less courts-they had to uphold the * legal * standard.
And now I’m late, so I bid you adeu (sp?)
~Dan
“What am I to do?”
“I thought you came here to kill me, not ask my advice.”
Okay, I don’t really have a lot more to add here but I’ll try.
Were the founding fathers influenced by their desire to provide a united nation, perhaps influenced to the extent of ignoring the larger moral questions of the constitution (slavery, women’s rights, etc.)? Yes.
Is that a bad thing? Not really.
The Constitution is a living reflection of the men who wrote it, not an absolute code of laws and morality. In our nations history there have been numerous times that we have seen things in a new light and changed the way the constitution was written via the ammendment proccess built right in.
One of your chief problems seems to be the judiciary and what you see as an excessive power over the legislative branch. I would ask you this; do you see a better way to have a legal review of the laws passed by the legislature, or do you feel that such a review is unneccesary?
I believe very strongly that in general, the government we have now is a good thing. I realize that it is always the fashionable counter-culture thing to do to want to tear down the government and build it again. However, I feel that you or anyone else would be hard pressed to create a document with as much flexibility, and the same staying power as our Constitution.
Were the founding fathers perfect? No. Was the Constitution, and the nation that it created? Nearly. (IMHO 
)
Finally, as to your assertion that there were many more Blacks and non-slaveowning whites than there were slaveowners, I will point out again: If the constitution had included a provision for giving Blacks the vote, it never would have been ratified by the Southern states. The United States of America, as a nation would not exist in the sense that you and I are thinking of it, and it is conceivable that the Revolutionary War would not have been fought, or have ended very differently.
Gilligan:
I hope I have cleared up my “right or wrong” comments at the end of my long post to The Ryan. Once again I apologise for misleading people about my beliefs.
I agree with this completely. I am not arguing that no constitution or laws are needed. The problems I have with the present constitution are in the form of the government created. I agree with the principles set forth in the Preamble.
Peace
The Ryan:
Umm. You do know that the Constitution was written in 1787? And that the Revolutionary War effectively ended with the surrender of Cornwallis in 1781? Right?
I agree. See my posts above for clarification, and apologies.
Salaam
Smartass:
I do not respond to Nazi analogies on principle. Unless National Socialism itself is the issue. Stalin is OK, though. My question here is this; If Stalin believed in Communism so much, why did he NOT set up a Communist system? Click here for more information on this.
Here you are responding to my OP statement that the FF did not believe in government.
Well, just before this you implied that people who do not believe in government were ideal people to set 1 up. Would that notion be equally nonsensical? If not, why?
This statement is worded this way for a reason; This is how I say it. And I have said it many times. I opened this thread with the intention of defending my ideas. If I can not, then I will no longer say them. If I am proven wrong, then I will change my opinion.
Of course,this wording can lead to subjective definitions. Here is the explanation I have already given on this sentence:
“My contention is that the FF feared government. They did not believe that government should be the way to best serve the interests of The People. So they deliberatly hamstrung the government so as to force people to find other means of solving problems. I am saying that this has caused many problems to remain unsolved”.
Disprove this and I will edit my worldview.
Also, since this is my 17th post in this thread, there should be plenty of other statements of mine to refute.
I have already tried to clear up this misunderstanding I caused. Check the end of my long post to The Ryan for an explanation.
BTW- I totally agree with your quote above.
Thank you for the information on Libertarianism. Since I know so little about it, any information is bound to be usefull. I have not clicked on the links yet, but I will when I get time. This campaign finance reform is turning into a hijack. Not that I mind, since I have a tendancy to post like this as well. So, please continue.
My knee-jerk reaction to this quote,since I do NOT assume what you imply that I do, is a feeling of irony. What has lead you to this assumtion?
I do not believe that our system will ever figure out what the problems with the constitution are, unless people ask; What are the problems with the constitution?
Thank you for your reply. I would like you to reply again. If you choose to do so, please try to write shorter posts. If you wish you could separate your ideas into more than 1 post. I intend to answer every post to this thread.
Peace