3 ms·

>>>The constitution doesn't have to explicitly allow something Yes it actually does, if the Constitution does not Grant the power to the Government then that

by syshum 7y ago

>>>The constitution doesn't have to explicitly allow something Yes it actually does, if the Constitution does not Grant the power to the Government then that power is Reserved for the States and the people We have forgotten what the constitution is, it is a document outlines what the government is allowed to do, everything else is suppose to be forbidden. Instead somehow over the last 200 years a few of the vague parts of the constitution have be misinterpreted (the commerce clause as an exampled) to give the federal government near unlimited power

foota 7y ago
Honestly? I don't really care what the constitution says, I think it makes way more sense for our government to have a blacklist of laws they can pass rather than a whitelist. That said though, I acknowledge that you're right. Fortunately for me, the courts seem to disagree :-)
- syshum 7y ago
  It only makes sense if you support Authoritarian governments and oppose liberty for individuals Granting the government unlimited authority then "blacklisting" only come things is a recipe for abuse, which is what we have today if you are a person that believes in individualist freedoms it is a fundamental difference as to who is the master and who is the servant, you believe the people are subverted to the government. I believe like our founders that We the people are the masters, I believe in self-governance, I believe in Self Ownership, I believe in liberty. it is sad we as a society has lost respect for indivualism and liberty
  - eesmith 7y ago
    The 10th amendment which you referred to limits federal powers, but not state powers. What in the Constitution (before 1865) prevents the US states from each being authoritarian governments? For example, the original constitution allowed each state to have an established religion. Up until 1824, Massachusetts residents were required to attend the parish church. That's hardly respect for individualism and liberty. And of course the US Constitution didn't respect 'Self Ownership' until at least the 13th Amendment (for black males), nor the 'liberty' of women to vote until least the 19th Amendment. When did the Constitution ever respect the individualism and liberty of Native Americans? And on the topic of liberty - racists in the 1960s wanted the 'liberty' to reject black customers (just like homophobes want the 'liberty' to reject gay customers) and considered it a Constitutionally protected right. Is that part of the respect for liberty you think we have lost?
    - nercht12 7y ago
      Pardon me for interrupting the debate between you gentlemen. I thought I'd toss in a couple cents. The constitution was never fully agreed upon in spirit. It was "these are the rules we agree upon in TEXT", but each man had his own ideas, and they figured it'd be better to let it slide and figure out the meanings later. However, I'm pretty sure, given they were fighting a revolution, the founding fathers had no intention of letting in too much federal government control. They would be appalled by what they see today. Remember that they chose the Articles of Confederation first. In short, nobody - even the founding fathers - have ever fully agreed upon the meaning of the Constitution. So to say, "The Constitution only limits federal powers, but not state powers." is just as much opinion as "The 10th amendment limits both state and federal powers". However, in response to you're arguments specifically, eesmith: Given that the average demographic on HN tends to oppose government surveillance, it seems rather nonsequitor that they would continue to give the gov power over such necessary things as maps, esp considering what the gov could do with that. The fact is, if you don't draw the line of power somewhere, it'll continue to be pushed back for further loss of liberty for the AVERAGE individual. Also, "Native Americans" were not American citizens, so they weren't entitled to the same treatment under law. No offense, but law isn't "fair to all people".
      - eesmith 7y ago
        I don't understand your second paragraph. The Treaty of Paris (1783) ended the revolutionary battle. The first draft of the Constitution wasn't until 1787, so none of the framers or signers of the Constitution were fighting a revolution at that time. (Also: "Founding Father" is an ambiguous term, and I dont see the relevancy.") Nor do I understand your third paragraph. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) established that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. This wasn't changed until the incorporation of the Bill of Rights starting with the 13th Amendment, in 1865. Thus, the pre-1865 interpretation of the Constitution was, from what I understand, almost exactly what I wrote, at least as regards the hypothetical creation of an authoritarian state government. Nor do I understand your 4th paragraph vis-a-vis 'power over such necessary things as maps'. My view is that of asark, many levels up: "The data and basic API should at least come from a government source, I'd say. Let companies but whatever sugar they want on top of that". That is, there's NOAA and there are private meteorology companies. Regarding Native Americans, I'll point to how the Commerce Clause could have defined Indian Tribes as being foreign states. Instead, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Court decided that the correct Constitution interpretation was as a "domestic dependent nation[s]" ... "Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian." So no, they weren't entitled to the same rights as US citizens. But they also weren't entitled to the same rights as foreign countries. How does that result in the sorts of self-governance that syshum desires? And it's not like the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made all of these issues disappear.
  - foota 7y ago
    I disagree on a couple points. For starters, our government is elected by the people and so regardless of what we allow them to do, as long as it doesn't affect the ability of people to fairly vote for their representation, they'll ultimately be accountable to the people. You may not agree with what the majority of people want, but that's different than saying "the people" are subservient. Additionally, I believe that you can carve out enough forbidden legislation to satisfy almost any desired level of personal freedom by carving out wide categories of things that can't be legislated.
    - syshum 7y ago
      >> our government is elected by the people and so regardless of what we allow them to do, as long as it doesn't affect the ability of people to fairly vote for their representation It is though? I make the case that is not. A large amount of the population is disenfranchised either legally or by virtue of not having any person they feel represents them due to the nature of the 2 party system The vast majority of people that do vote today are voting AGAINST someone, i.e "I don't like Trump but I really do not like Clinton" or "I do not like Clinton but I really do not like Trump" The way our elections are held is a farce and more people every year are simply opting at believing it is a waste of time, and a few studies show it is a waste of time as the politicians do not really listen to the will of the people anyway There are multiple ways to improve the system. Doing away with First Past the post voting would go along way. I also support removing party affiliation from the ballot. People need to vote for individuals not parties I have other but none of them will ever be enacted

by syshum 7y ago

foota 7y ago

Honestly? I don't really care what the constitution says, I think it makes way more sense for our government to have a blacklist of laws they can pass rather than a whitelist. That said though, I acknowledge that you're right. Fortunately for me, the courts seem to disagree :-)

syshum 7y ago
It only makes sense if you support Authoritarian governments and oppose liberty for individuals Granting the government unlimited authority then "blacklisting" only come things is a recipe for abuse, which is what we have today if you are a person that believes in individualist freedoms it is a fundamental difference as to who is the master and who is the servant, you believe the people are subverted to the government. I believe like our founders that We the people are the masters, I believe in self-governance, I believe in Self Ownership, I believe in liberty. it is sad we as a society has lost respect for indivualism and liberty
- eesmith 7y ago
  The 10th amendment which you referred to limits federal powers, but not state powers. What in the Constitution (before 1865) prevents the US states from each being authoritarian governments? For example, the original constitution allowed each state to have an established religion. Up until 1824, Massachusetts residents were required to attend the parish church. That's hardly respect for individualism and liberty. And of course the US Constitution didn't respect 'Self Ownership' until at least the 13th Amendment (for black males), nor the 'liberty' of women to vote until least the 19th Amendment. When did the Constitution ever respect the individualism and liberty of Native Americans? And on the topic of liberty - racists in the 1960s wanted the 'liberty' to reject black customers (just like homophobes want the 'liberty' to reject gay customers) and considered it a Constitutionally protected right. Is that part of the respect for liberty you think we have lost?
  - nercht12 7y ago
    Pardon me for interrupting the debate between you gentlemen. I thought I'd toss in a couple cents. The constitution was never fully agreed upon in spirit. It was "these are the rules we agree upon in TEXT", but each man had his own ideas, and they figured it'd be better to let it slide and figure out the meanings later. However, I'm pretty sure, given they were fighting a revolution, the founding fathers had no intention of letting in too much federal government control. They would be appalled by what they see today. Remember that they chose the Articles of Confederation first. In short, nobody - even the founding fathers - have ever fully agreed upon the meaning of the Constitution. So to say, "The Constitution only limits federal powers, but not state powers." is just as much opinion as "The 10th amendment limits both state and federal powers". However, in response to you're arguments specifically, eesmith: Given that the average demographic on HN tends to oppose government surveillance, it seems rather nonsequitor that they would continue to give the gov power over such necessary things as maps, esp considering what the gov could do with that. The fact is, if you don't draw the line of power somewhere, it'll continue to be pushed back for further loss of liberty for the AVERAGE individual. Also, "Native Americans" were not American citizens, so they weren't entitled to the same treatment under law. No offense, but law isn't "fair to all people".
    - eesmith 7y ago
      I don't understand your second paragraph. The Treaty of Paris (1783) ended the revolutionary battle. The first draft of the Constitution wasn't until 1787, so none of the framers or signers of the Constitution were fighting a revolution at that time. (Also: "Founding Father" is an ambiguous term, and I dont see the relevancy.") Nor do I understand your third paragraph. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) established that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments. This wasn't changed until the incorporation of the Bill of Rights starting with the 13th Amendment, in 1865. Thus, the pre-1865 interpretation of the Constitution was, from what I understand, almost exactly what I wrote, at least as regards the hypothetical creation of an authoritarian state government. Nor do I understand your 4th paragraph vis-a-vis 'power over such necessary things as maps'. My view is that of asark, many levels up: "The data and basic API should at least come from a government source, I'd say. Let companies but whatever sugar they want on top of that". That is, there's NOAA and there are private meteorology companies. Regarding Native Americans, I'll point to how the Commerce Clause could have defined Indian Tribes as being foreign states. Instead, in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Court decided that the correct Constitution interpretation was as a "domestic dependent nation[s]" ... "Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian." So no, they weren't entitled to the same rights as US citizens. But they also weren't entitled to the same rights as foreign countries. How does that result in the sorts of self-governance that syshum desires? And it's not like the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 made all of these issues disappear.
- foota 7y ago
  I disagree on a couple points. For starters, our government is elected by the people and so regardless of what we allow them to do, as long as it doesn't affect the ability of people to fairly vote for their representation, they'll ultimately be accountable to the people. You may not agree with what the majority of people want, but that's different than saying "the people" are subservient. Additionally, I believe that you can carve out enough forbidden legislation to satisfy almost any desired level of personal freedom by carving out wide categories of things that can't be legislated.
  - syshum 7y ago
    >> our government is elected by the people and so regardless of what we allow them to do, as long as it doesn't affect the ability of people to fairly vote for their representation It is though? I make the case that is not. A large amount of the population is disenfranchised either legally or by virtue of not having any person they feel represents them due to the nature of the 2 party system The vast majority of people that do vote today are voting AGAINST someone, i.e "I don't like Trump but I really do not like Clinton" or "I do not like Clinton but I really do not like Trump" The way our elections are held is a farce and more people every year are simply opting at believing it is a waste of time, and a few studies show it is a waste of time as the politicians do not really listen to the will of the people anyway There are multiple ways to improve the system. Doing away with First Past the post voting would go along way. I also support removing party affiliation from the ballot. People need to vote for individuals not parties I have other but none of them will ever be enacted