Maybe that it's so awesome that many countries have tailored their own Constitutions to it?
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Conservatives Love Big Government, Hate Paying for It
- Thread starter hakr100
- Start date
Maybe that it's so awesome that many countries have tailored their own Constitutions to it?
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Haha
What I mean is, in Ireland, the Constitution rarely gets mentioned
Its mentioned like every third post here
Why single out the Bible? Why not reference the Quran and Hadith, or the Torah, or the Book of Mormon? Do you just hate Christianity?
hakr100
Android Expert
No, I don't hate christianity or any other religion. I don't have much use for any organized religion.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Because if he singled out the bible, he would be accussed of being anti-semetic 
It's considered (by us, at least) to be the best "government guidemap" created to date, in that it clearly delineates government's role in people's lives (which is, ideally, not a whole lot). Thereby making it much more difficult for tyranny here in the States (notice I said difficult, not impossible)...
Haha
What I mean is, in Ireland, the Constitution rarely gets mentioned
Its mentioned like every third post here
our Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights defines us as a country. they define and solidify our separation from English rule. maybe the Irish aren't as proud as we are of ditching the English. /shrug
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Half of Ireland are quietly regretting it now
The other half are loudly regretting voting Fianna F
hakr100
Android Expert
What defines us as a country these days is that the rich are getting far richer, the middle class is in a tailspin, and corporations rule. The sun is setting on what was once the American dream.
You seem to consider a 'right' granted by the constitution only a 'right' if the actual word 'right' appears in it.
I hate to tell you but even the 1st ten amendments the word 'right' only appears twice.... but all 10 amendments grant rights to the 'people'
When the constitution says: Congress has the power "To borrow money on the credit of the United States"
That is granting Congress the 'right' to borrow money.
Congress is, of course, the government so it has been granted rights by the constitution.
The constitution gives congress the right "provide for the common Defence"
Are you saying we as a society do not have the 'right' to expect the federal government to protect us against foreign governments?
No... I'm not arguing that at all. Point of fact, I seem to recall (either here or elsewhere) saying that not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution
Which demonstrates that you have no idea what is meant by "rights".
Rights are not "granted" by the Constitution: certain ones are recognized and protected by it. But it doesn't grant anything.
As for your example of a "governmental right": it's a power of government, meant to enable it to function. But a government can't have rights (unless, of course, you want to run with the idea of "collective rights". Which has been shot down numerous times, and would also extend "rights" to corporations and the like)...
Which the government does... how again?
Remember: the founders despised the idea of a standing army. The original intent they had was for the nation to be protected by the militia (every able-bodied man between 16 and 45, IIRC. Might be wrong on the ages). The "common defense" was intended to be all of us protecting ourselves and each-other.
"Societal rights" is another form of "collective right". Rights (using the BoR as the shining examples) do not exist for "collectives", but rather for individuals.
hakr100
Android Expert
Are you saying that societal rights do not exist? Surely you are not saying that.
In a civilized society, if "Frank" is discovered to have contagious tuberculosis, he may be hospitalized against his will until the TB can be brought under control. If "Jane" is determined to be psychotic and dangerous to herself and others, she may be hospitalized against her will.
These hospitalizations are societal rights, per se. Society has the right to separate dangerous individuals from the general population.
It's not semantics. We are discussing an individual's rights. Whether there is a right to health care.
Actually, when people claim the right to something, it's generally a protected behavior that the government cannot take away.
I have never EVER heard of it being used that way. I think that we would all agree that there is no constitutional 'right' to roads, but that the government providing roads is a constitutional activity.
Are you saying the court oked the programs only because they would have oked anyway?
I'm saying that the court didn't ok these programs until Roosevelt threatened to "stack" the court with 6 new justices.
Effort to Stack Supreme Court Taking Shape
One thing builds on another.
In my opinion, roads, power grids, so on and so forth. Things that benefit "society", not things that only benefit some.
There is a benefit to society for taking care of the downtrodden, but not if it encourages the downtrodden to remain downtrodden.
I have my own views on welfare though.
Abbreviated version:
Train some welfare recipients as childcare workers (after thorough screening).
Train these recipients to watch and take care of children (specifically the children of OTHER welfare recipients).
Pay firms a fee to take on and train welfare recipients. Welfare recipients will work on road crews, construction crews, etc...
They will only receive their welfare check, while working next to people making a real wage, a decent wage.
This will encourage these people to work hard, learn their jobs, and get hired on at a real living wage.
It's one thing to sit at home anonymously receiving a check for doing nothing.
It's another thing to work for that check, with people who KNOW you are on welfare, and are making a much better living than YOU are.
The idea of welfare should be to get people BACK on their feet, not to just pay them for doing nothing.
obsession? It's the document that determines what the government CAN and CANNOT do in this country. It is the document that determines who has what rights.
It is the document that makes our country go...
Seems pretty obvious how important that document is in the US...
Haha
What I mean is, in Ireland, the Constitution rarely gets mentioned
Its mentioned like every third post here
Because we are talking about a "Constitutional" issue. Whether the government is allowed to do something by the constitution.
That is 'allowing' Congress to borrow money.
Negative, and dangerously so.
The government has the RESPONSIBILITY to provide for the common Defense.
You can waive rights. You cannot waive responsibilities.
You have a 'right' to expect whatever you want. Your thoughts and wishes can not be interfered with by the Federal Government.
If you are asking if we have a 'right' to never be attacked by Foreign governments, then no... we don't. (i.e. Pearl Harbor, etc...)
Does our government have a responsibility to protect us from attack by foreign agents? Yes, they do.
Is it reasonable to expect that they be successful in that responsibility? Yes, it is.
hakr said:
Historically speaking, societal rights are generally the basis for judicial activism. You can change things legally by claiming there is a societal right, that you couldn't otherwise change.
hakr100
Android Expert
I just love how the misconceptions in regard to "welfare" are perpetuated.
"Welfare" as you are thinking about it no longer exists. Relatively speaking, there are very few able-bodied adults on "the dole." Most of the adults who receive government payments do so because of a mental or physical disability.
What we have left, for the most part, is AFDC, with the stress on the "DC." or Dependent Children. In other words, payments to support children in families without the wherewithal to support them decently. That support also includes slow access to low-level medical care.
In more civilized western countries, of course, virtually everyone has access to decent health care without worrying about how to pay for it if they are destitute or near destitute. That includes children.
Thus, when you talk about eliminating what welfare remains, you are talking mostly about taking food and other kinds of support away from children. These children did not ask to be here and, thanks to the efforts of many of those who also support ending AFDC, their mothers weren't able to obtain abortions, either.
"Welfare" as you are thinking about it no longer exists. Relatively speaking, there are very few able-bodied adults on "the dole." Most of the adults who receive government payments do so because of a mental or physical disability.
What we have left, for the most part, is AFDC, with the stress on the "DC." or Dependent Children. In other words, payments to support children in families without the wherewithal to support them decently. That support also includes slow access to low-level medical care.
In more civilized western countries, of course, virtually everyone has access to decent health care without worrying about how to pay for it if they are destitute or near destitute. That includes children.
Thus, when you talk about eliminating what welfare remains, you are talking mostly about taking food and other kinds of support away from children. These children did not ask to be here and, thanks to the efforts of many of those who also support ending AFDC, their mothers weren't able to obtain abortions, either.
I know you can't provide any proof to support this statement, but I'm going to ask anyway...
Proof?
hakr100
Android Expert
I'm sure you can find tea party approved URLs that make a different claim. I'm not interested in playing warring URLs. Any legitimate source you find will tell you that the bulk of what most people consider welfare goes to AFDC kids.
Of course, corporate welfare is significant, too. I don't see many demands for reducing that.
Of course, corporate welfare is significant, too. I don't see many demands for reducing that.
Then provide a legitimate source... if you can.
See, you should be doing your homework, BEFORE you state something is true.
Well, I knew there was no evidence to support your statement. At least now, anyone who reads this thread will know that as well.