It is about time that we abolish the Electoral College, delegates,

You have hit the nail on the head! The political process in this country is such a distorted version of democracy that we are in danger of losing the essence of what democracy stands for. Something really needs to be done or we will soon begin to lose our voice as citizens altogether. It is a frightening prospect.

Just thought I would add this which is from this website's information on the electorial college...

http://www.archives.gov/f...

"Is my vote for President and Vice President meaningful in the Electoral College system?

Yes, within your State your vote has a great deal of significance. Under the Electoral College system, we do not elect the President and Vice President through a direct nation-wide vote. The Presidential election is decided by the combined results of 51 State elections (in this context, the term "State" includes DC). It is possible that an elector could ignore the results of the popular vote, but that occurs very rarely. Your vote helps decide which candidate receives your State's electoral votes.

The founders of the nation devised the Electoral College system as part of their plan to share power between the States and the national government. Under the Federal system adopted in the U.S. Constitution, the nation-wide popular vote has no legal significance. As a result, it is possible that the electoral votes awarded on the basis of State elections could produce a different result than the nation-wide popular vote. Nevertheless, the individual citizen's vote is important to the outcome of each State election."

Again, to give this quote proper attribution...

  http://www.archives.gov/f...

The US National Archives Records Administration
Please go to that website for more information about the Electorial College. They have a printer friendly version which appears to be for better sharing of the informtion in the public domain.

What I am hearing about state's rights is an antiquated response to a very territorial view and attitude that the individual states had during the time of the establishment of the union, and so the electorial college helped to placate this almost "nationalistic" mindset of the early states. This mindset does not really exist in this day and age. Most Americans perceive themselves as "Americans", not "Californians" or "Texans" (well maybe Texas was a bad example. LOL). I think that it would be safe to say, logically, that the fact that Bush was elected in his initial term left a bad taste in the majority of Americans mouths, as evidenced by the fact that most Americans did not vote for him. This cannot be lightly explained away.

Sorry dear,

I have to differ with you. We have a large Nation and many states each with there own needs based on their topography, minerals, farming, fishing, manufacturing,etc. From a business perspective there is a lot of difference in the States.

There is also a lot of difference in the States when it comes to the way people identify themselves... Try living in California and hearing people from other States make comments about Californians...It is not just a Texas thing. There is State pride and State shame too.

We are not as united as we would like to believe... There is even a difference between Northern and Southern California and that is just in one State... Think of the boundary and water issues between the States as a whole.

The reason we have senators and congressmen chosen by people within states is because the founding fathers thought that the states were important.


Sorry I have to disagree with you.

I am very glad that you agree that a straight vote is the only way that a true democracy can exist, but, hey, please don't be so quick to alter the Bill of Rights and mess with freedom of speech, my friend! I know there is a lot of bs flying around in the media, but remember what they taught us in school about the press being the fourth branch of government? People have got to be intelligent enough to discern nonsense from truth. I know, it did not happen during the last election, or the one before that, but, in principle, you can't throw away the baby with the bath water! That has its own dangers. Most people simply will not or cannot go to actually see the candidates speak. That may be a bit of an unrealistic expectation. One can only hope that for every commentator and editor of one persuasion of thought that there is another representing the other side. At least the pros take the time to listen and gather the information, albeit however slanted it may be. Most people do not do that and never will, unfortunately. The media at least keeps folks involved to some extent in the political process whereas they might otherwise not be. In an ideal world, you are right, but, as you know, this world is far from ideal.

I am happy to see, however, that if a condidate comes along with the courage to advocate for the abolution of the electoral college that you will vote for that person.

I agree up to the point of taking away people's freedom of speech when it comes to endorsements, which is what that would mean. I really don't think many people pay that much attention of endorsements anyway but I will say that anyone who would base their vote solely on what their favorite Hollywood celebrity says should have their right to vote taken away!
Annie

Spin it any way that you want to, but when one candidate wins the popular vote and another takes office, it defeats the idea that we as individuals really have the power to pick our leader, plain and simple.

If we are a Republic and not a Democracy, then why do all the politicians refer to this country as a democracy? Why does Bush sing accolades of how we are seeding the middle east with a new democracy? You can't have it both ways.

Incidentally, the problem with ensuring that high population states do not dictate policy or have unfair advantage over lower population states was taken care of by the establishment of the House of Representatives, Destiny. As you know, the larger states have more Congressional Representatives than the smaller ones. The Executive Branch, however, should belong to The People. If not, why should we bother to go out and vote at all?

There is no spin involved at all.

The US is a Representative Republic because the Framers knew that a straight democracy would not survive and would eventually collapse from within.

When you have a true democracy, everything has to be voted on by everyone... that means every bill, proposed law, every appropriation... the complete thing would have to be voted on.

The would be no representative because they would not be necessary in a non-representative government.

"If we are a Republic and not a Democracy, then why do all the politicians refer to this country as a democracy? Why does Bush sing accolades of how we are seeding the middle east with a new democracy? You can't have it both ways."

Yes you can have it both ways.... We are a Representative Republic based on Democratic Principles which simply means that our form of government has elements of a democratic government built into it.

What part of that is so hard to understand?

"Incidentally, the problem with ensuring that high population states do not dictate policy or have unfair advantage over lower population states was taken care of by the establishment of the House of Representatives, Destiny. As you know, the larger states have more Congressional Representatives than the smaller ones."

Actually, it is the Electoral College that you hate so much that prevents the high population states from having an unfair advantage... as the House has nothing to do with elections.

It is the Senate who originally chose the president... not the House.

The votes are what chooses the electors who then do the actual voting... that is the reason for voting.

The entire government belongs to and works for the people... however Congress seems to have forgotten that over the years and seems to think they rule us and can do whatever they want to.

The executive branch runs the country and is limited to two terms while Congress has no such limitations.

The "spin" will never end on this for those who approve of this idiotic thing called the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers themselves would roll over in their graves if they knew what a farce the 2000 election became. When those who say we need the EC to prevent the large states and cities from deciding the Presidential elections you have to remember they're referring to minorities and poor people, by saying "urban areas" they think they're being PC and can get away with it. A poor or disabled person's vote should be equal to a wealthy person's vote and a black inner-city person's vote should be equal to the white farmer's vote. What's so hard about that to understand? Here's a helpful summary of the 2000 vote, state by state, listing popular vote and electoral votes:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

In Connecticut Gore won by over 200,000 votes but got only 8 Electoral Votes, in Delaware Gore got 55% of the votes to Bush's 42% in a very small state but got only 3 but in Florida the margin was 527 votes, which is still arguable, but Bush got all 25 Electoral votes. If someone can explain to me how that is fair I'll admit my mistake but nobody's managed to do it so far.
Annie

More complaints of "we was robbed twice" by sore losers.

The fact you seem to forget is that "LOSER GORE" conceded defeat and then changed his mind.

The fact is that Bush is a lot better president than Gore would have been, and Bush is a hell of a lot smarter than Gore.

The fact is that the vote was cast, the election decided, and the results were upheld in court.... of course the democrats care nothing for the law when it does not benefit them.

Gore lost, Bush won... get over it.

What concerns me more than anything is Americans who hat our country so much that they would tear down the very foundations that our country was built upon in order to serve their own selfish socialist agendas.

The Constitution is the heart of our government and of our politics and way of life... and anyone who doesn't like it is more than welcome to cross the nearest border out, because frankly we don't want you.

There are many you would gladly replace you as they know that America is the greatest and freest nation there is.

A lot of Americans don't appreciate how lucky they really are, and are doing everything they can to tear this country down.

If you don't like our Constitution, if you don't like our freedoms and liberties, then by all means LEAVE.

Go to one of those communist countries that so many are trying to turn America into with all of these socialist ideas.

If you want the government providing everything for you in return for your freedom, then find a country that will do that... there are those of us who actually believe in minimal government interference in our lives, and that is not what the democrats stand for.

I am pro the Constitution of the United States and am for the Electorial College because it is a part of it.

But I am totally repulsed by your other comments...

Gore perhaps would have been better than a President who has at every turn violated his Constitutional oath of office in his violations of the 4th Ammendment by illegal search and seizure of phone conversations, emails, etc. and by using the CIA to get at credit records... and this is wide scale and not just of those of so-called "terrorists"
It is true that Clinton also did this and it was an outrage that he did this as well.

Add to that the President's signing statements which are an attempt to make the Executive Branch more important and to decrease the importance of the other two branches of governemtnt and you have a person who is showing himself to be in violation of the Constitution and its aim of creating seperate and equal Branches of government.

Add to that his statements to his own staff, often quoted, that "A dictator is okay as long as I am it" and also stating that the "Constitution is a G.D. piece of paper." And you have a President that is unfit to continue to be in office.

Add to that his violation of international law, the Geneva Convention, his hiring of private contractors which are outside the control of Senate and violations of agreements with other nation-states in going through their airspace with detainees, his support of torture, his decision to attempt to violate habeas corpus rights for all detainees whether they were just alies who do not have visas or are so called enemy combatants.

And there are more things that I can mention... Including his holding to a Conservative interpretation of the Constitution which attampts to castrate it by taking off all of the legal history of case law that actually gives up our rights and freedoms that we should be cherishing instead of trying to give them back to the Big Government.

He has also done his best to violate and usurp States rights and this also violates the Constitution of the United States.

I must admit that I would rather have had Gore or even Nader than this fellow who has done so much damage and who continues to be a danger to the United States because of things that he has done like getting us into two wars at the same time and sabre rattling for a third when we have not the manpower for even two. Sending our boys into battle with no equiptment including tanks without armor or with Vietnam War era equiptment while his cronies the generals are riding around in brand new tanks with the best armor when they are not even going into the battle zones illustrates the kind of elitist this President is. He would rather see a lot of money going into an ill conceived plan to militarize space than to our troops.


And you still support the man... who has done all this and more... And you say that you are pro the Constitution...
I just don't get it.

It sounds to me as if you are only a supporter of the Constitution when it suits your purposes.

I would hold to what we were given by the Founding Fathers, the beautiful bird of that soars free... You would see that bird plucked of its feathers of case law and would see that bird with its feet bound and its beak gagged by a man who has no regard for it...



I am sorry that we are on the same side of the electorial college debate.

oops ... to correct some typos...

The liberal interpretation gives us our rights and liberties... The right to privacy and other rights are not found in the Constitution as it is written but were given to us through tort and case law. The Conservative interpretation would see us as Citizens have less rights and liberties and would in fact give more rights to the government to harm us as people. There is every reason why a President would be for a Conservative view of the Constitution especially when he would like to take power over the people more firmly. The Conservative block of the Republican party has been led astray by the word "Conservative" which in the case of the judicial system has nothing at all to do with values on either side and everything to do with this tort/case law inclusion which makes the Constitution able to keep pace with society. The Founding fathers had a high respect for case law. They said often that it needed to be respected. They would roll over in their graves to think that there were people who did not understand this. The so-called liberal interpretation of the Constitution has nothing to do with "liberal" values contrary to the public opinion which has been held to in error by the Conservatives in the Republican party because they have bought into the propaganda from the spin machines and have not decided to do their own balanced research to get at the truth but instead have just bad mouthed anything that had the word "liberal" in it as part of a blind knee jerk reaction.
In this case, "liberal" does not mean communist. It instead means really respecting the Constitution and the case law that supports it and not attempting to do harm to the people by disrespecting the will of the Founding Fathers who themselves respected case law.

I take it that you have not yet realized that the Bush Administration is just a continuation of the Clinton Administration with the following exceptions....

We went from a bombing campaign in Iraq to an actual invasion, and we went to Afghanistan which Clinton refused to do despite calls for him to.

Then there is the tax cut issue... 1.3 trillion across the board including a new 10% tax bracket to the poorest taxpayers.

You are right that Clinton tapped phones, and he did it secretly, but did you also know that the Patriot Act was a Clinton idea that Bush expanded on and then implemented?

The recent announcement of the agreement between US and Canadian generals to cooperate in case of a natural disaster be allowing Canadian troops on US soil was an idea that was first brought up in the Clinton Administration, and now it is fact.

I am very disturbed over privacy rights violations by both parties, but I am even more disturbed by the Rights that the left keeps chopping away at including the 1st and 2nd Amendments, and the recent illegal use of Eminent Domain which is a direct attack on property rights.

Now we have Pelosi and gang trying to sneak an Illegal Immigration Bill into the Iraq Troop Funding Bill in order to grant Amnesty to Illegals in the hopes that Bush won't veto it because the troops need that funding.

This of course is illegal because it will not allow for debate on this Bill.... another one of Pelosi's new rules.

Apparently you are not aware of the socialist agenda of the liberals and the attempt to turn us into another Russia.

Yet you would think to lecture me about Bush, our Constitutional Rights, and about how smart you think Gore is?

With his past drug problems, did he ever finish Journalism School?

From what I read, the only reason he first got into office anyway was because the idiot voters thought they were voting for his dad, who by all accounts actually was a decent politician.

I remember Gore walking into that library, seeing all of the pictures of those presidents on the wall and asking "Who are all these guys?", and all Clinton could do was look at him in disbelief over the ignorance that Gore was displaying ON NATIONAL TV no less.

Then he invented the internet.

All of the things that you say Bush has done is the same things that have been doe for years, and the list of illegal and unconstitutional powers taken by both parties and politicians is very long.

Yes I stand for the Constitution, and in it's strictest interpretation.

Not everyone in the democrat party are liberals, many are conservatives, and there are lots of liberals in the republican party.

I am a member of no party, but I am a conservative... socially, fiscally, and politically.

Before you come barking at me, I think you should take a very hard look at the democrat party, and the socialist and communist influences in it, because they are very well entrenched.

After you do that, then come talk to me about rights.

Frankly I voted for Nader ... Knowing he would not get elected, disagreeing with most of his philosophies but at least believing him to be more honest than both of them... It was a protest vote, and I must admit that I did and do regret it.

I am not sure which I dislike more communism or fascism ... As both seem to take away rights and liberties... I see in the Republican Party a tendency to go too far right and in the Democratic Party a tendency to go too far left...
I have though seen that the Democratic Party seems to at least say that it cares about the people and that it wishes to defend rights and liberties while I see in the Republican Party Darwinian economics and a tendency now away from the small business that it used to support to the support of big business which shows no loyalty at all to the Nation, to the people or to the anything except their own profit motive. This lack of accountability and the lack of safeguards worries me as I see the water being polluted. The air contamination spreading to other nations and the degredation of our food supply, etc. all for profit... I think that perhaps there is a need to somehow find a balance between the competing parties... and political and economic orientations... as it seems that the people are the losers now... targeted for destruction by all quarters.
This angers me.

I would say that I was raised up with the literature of the Christophers and grew up early disliking communism because of the refugees that I befriended from Vietnam, etc. in my youth and also the refugee from Yugoslavia who I met... I am against Communism. Yet I have found that there are some who label as "communists" any people who seem to want to put into practice the true message of Christ which was more of a radical poverty .. a tending to the needs of the community and of the poor that supercedes the desire for wealth and for profit. There are some who might label this as "communist" but this is labeling in error. I think a lot of democrats join the party because they are caregivers seeing the needs of the people and wanting to help. This seems to go more for the women who are in the party. I have done counseling, social work and have also been a newspaper reporter. I have seen and heard a lot of suffering. I did not think that the Republican Party cared at all about it and thought that at least the Democratic Party seemed to care a bit so that is the party that I went with. I am though more of a Constitutionalist than I am a member of any party.

I did not like Clinton but he got impeached by the Republicans as you know... Bush is trampling on rights all over the place and not hiding his violations at all and the Republican Party which impeached Clinton on the little stuff that he did in the open (he never got impeached for the big stuff as it was well concealed then) is doing nothing against the big stuff that Bush or Chenny do nor little stuff either. The double standard frustrates me to no end.

I am glad that you see the errors of both sides... I must admit that from your earlier post I was unable to discern that... Sorry if I offended you by my response.

No, you didn't anger me at all.

We actually have a bit in common, as I consider myself to be a Conservative Constitutionalist.

When I first started on myLot I wound up having to do a LOT of research, and have participated in a lot of political discussions that led to even more research... and I was not happy with what I found about our history from about WW1 on.

I actually support Ron Paul, and would like to see us get back to basics.

There are people in both parties that are determined to run this country into the ground, and none of the 3 leading candidates are acceptable choices.

It isn't the big business that concerns me as much as it is the Financial groups and the FED.

We need to get rid of the FED and get back on the gold standard because the FED is at the root of our economic problems.

Every one of the candidates are wanting to increase spending, 2 with tax increases and 1 without.

We need to cut spending, not increase it. Right now there are no good solutions, and it is not going to get better for a long while, despite any promises of change or any other false scenario any of them make.

Basically I see us as pretty well screwed.

I can understand your dislike of the FED and the liking for the gold standard... as we now have debt attached to every dollar we spend... Yet I am not against spending...

Fiscally, I am a bit liberal in that area... I have worked again with those who are through no fault of their own dependent on government for assistance, those who are disabled physically and mentally and developmentally...
those who are injured and unable to work, those who are single mothers trying to provide care to young children without child care and without adequate supports,etc.

I believe that the government should be spending money on maintaining the roads, highways, trains, and infestructure; should be insuring food safety; should be providing those who are homeless with some sheltor and those who are children and the elderly with medical care and with other assistance... These things and more should be done with the money... I think it is a crime that we are spending so much money though on defense for black ops projects which are only put into place to kill those of a like creation.

Wondering if you can tolerate this difference.

I know a bit about being disabled, and despite the fact that I am forced to depend on SSA to survive after having paid into it for 30 years, I still dislike the system as it is not allowed by the Constitution.

Neither are the socialist spending policies that you support.

The government was never meant to be a charity, and taxes were never intended to provide for the unfortunate.

Before the liberals began their destruction of the family and traditional family values, our families took care of unfortunate family members, and the charities were provided by churches, benevolent societies, and voluntary "contributions by those who could afford to give.

The problem of single mothers is somewhat new in our history, as such a thing was strongly discouraged and having children out of wedlock was a cause of shame within the community. Those that did break the taboo where usually sent away to live with relatives elsewhere, or they stayed and faced the disapproval of their peers.

Childcare was done by other family members when necessary, but very few women worked outside of the home.

Divorces were rare, and sometime very hard to get, and any man that did not provide for his children and family was judged harshly by public opinion.

Thanks to the liberals this has all changed and the change has not been for the better.

"I believe that the government should be spending money on maintaining the roads, highways, trains, and infestructure"... I believe that is what the fuel taxes cover.... which is a user tax and is legal under the Constitution.

"should be insuring food safety" - Should be done by local inspectors and government using strict common sense guidelines.... Since these inspectors would be local and actually consuming the product they are inspecting, we can be assured of a minimum of mistakes, thus etter and safer food.

"should be providing those who are homeless with some sheltor and those who are children and the elderly with medical care and with other assistance..."

This is not the governments job at all ... it again falls under the job of the families, and private and church run charities and shelters as before.

"I think it is a crime that we are spending so much money though on defense for black ops projects which are only put into place to kill those of a like creation."

I think it is sad that it is necessary to spend so much on our defense. I happen to like my freedom, and the fact that I can criticize my government and the things I oppose without the fear of being imprisoned or killed for my beliefs.

There are many in other countries who don't have these freedoms or assurances.

As freedom is never free, as it is bought at the expense of the blood of those who died to protect our freedoms, and as a Vietnam ERA veteran who enlisted out of high school and stood ready to defend our freedoms... I not only can tolerate the difference, I support the difference because I understand the need for it.

Thank you for your service.

It seems as if we have very different ideas of government's role in society... I see the need to deal with what is as I see now the needs of the people around me. I have never been on any assistance other than unemployment when I needed it between jobs. I can understand your feelings about the assistance you are on but it is true that you earned it and are more than entitled to it especially since you are a veteren.

We cannot easily go back to a time when there were extended families and charities which had enough money to actually help the people who need to be helped. The food banks run by the Second Harvest and other groups have a hard time getting enough food to feed people. There charities are hurting for money because people are tapped out due to the higher food and gas prices as the lower and middle class people who usually give even out of their lack have not been able to give as much. There are, at present not enough supports... It would be great if there were.

I do not think that the liberals alone were responsible for the problems... Those who are conservative were also to blame. Those who developed the businesses that gave low wages to people, those who moved their places of business off shore, those who raised their rents and their rates willy nilly, those who did lured people away from their extended families to come and work in California and other states, those who pushed for progress and industrialization and corporitization and moved people away from small businesses and farms that could support extended families were liberal and conservative... and these things did in fact cause some of the problems we are seeing. I think that perhaps it is an error to only point fingers in one direction. It is inaccurate. Both camps have made the problems we are seeing. It would be nice if we could go back but we can't and blaming each other does not do any good.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

ROFLMAO.... Spoken like a true liberal.

What you see as improvements in society really aren't.

Wages are at an all time high, yet the higher wages get, the more the cost of living increases to keep up. This is simple and basic economics.

The whole womens lib and equal rights and all of the other was nothing more than a design to destroy the family unit, and it is working well.

It may interest you to know that the value of the dollar is around two-four cents now, and it is only going to get worse.

Womens Liberation ....
http://video.google.com/v...

Federal Reserve ...
http://video.google.com/v...

How we are headed to Fascism ...
http://video.google.com/v...

NAU and V-Chip...
http://video.google.com/v...

Here is part of what Obama is about and what it is going to cost....
http://www.cfiflistmanage...

Here are those communists you say you hate...
http://www.aim.org/aim-co...

You should now have a better idea what is going on, and why McCain is just as bad as the rest because he shares the same general views.

Enjoy.

OMG, this was an absolutely amazing sidebar to the main discussion, but it made for an intense debate. After reading your respective comments very carefully, is clear to me that White Bird is a very astute liberal, almost too close to the center to be called anything but an Independent, whereas Destiny is nothing less than a Reactionary conservative, the kind that, well, frankly, scares me. I certainly agree with White Bird in one very important area--the Founding Fathers probably rolled in their graves to see Bush get elected the first time. The system failed any intent for a government "For the People, By the People..." to be sure. There is not doubt that Gore was the intellectual superior over Bush. I remember the debates clearly. No contest there.

Maybe if you consider snake oil salesmen to be superior intellectuals.

Mostly they are just cheap con artists... case in point would be the whole man made global warming scam that Gore is currently running on every one stupid enough to believe in it.

As far as being a Reactionary Conservative... although you are trying to be insulting, you actually paid me a compliment.

The Founding Fathers would fit into that classification as well, and you see what the results were of that.

What you have failed to take into account is that classical liberalism and classical conservatism are not what is in play in American politics.

In America, the roles have reversed.

I believe in individual rights and freedoms... American liberals do not.

American liberals believe that group rights and government control of the people is of paramount importance, and that is classical conservatism.

In short, I believe that the Constitution should be followed as written, with the limitations on government strictly adhered to.

I find judicial activism and socialism in any form to be intolerable, inconsistent and incompatible with our Constitutional principals.

Liberalism and Socialism are words describing the same political principals, and the only difference between Socialism and Communism is that Socialism is established by gradual acceptance and Communism is imposed by force.

Once Socialism has become fully ingrained then it is held by force and becomes Communism.

Either method deprives the populace of their individual rights.

If by calling me a Reactionary Conservative you are saying that I oppose Socialism, then you are absolutely correct, which means that you also just called yourself and every other liberal a Socialist and a Communist, which is also exactly correct.

This stands so reason considering the way that Socialism has been influencing the democrat party for many years.

You should be afraid... you should be very afraid.

Have a nice day.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

Hi Chas,

I have often called myself a moderate... But some people think that label means that a person is wishy washy in what they believe in...
I know what I believe in and stand firmly by it but I do not walk lockstep with any person as that is not being free.

To illustrate the path of my idea of a moderate let me tell this short story that I heard:

There was one story of about the liberal and the conservative...

There was a man who was drowning off shore. A conservative saw the man drowning and wanted to help so he threw in a rope and told the man to swim for it. The rope was way too short. The man could not reach it so he drowned.

There was once a man who was drowning off shore. A liberal saw the man drowning and wanted to help so he threw in a rope and told the man to swim for it. The rope was very long but the man drowned because the liberal had let go of the rope.

In both cases there were plenty of good intentions but the man drowned.

I would hope that the moderate would do what was necessary to actually find out what was needed and to utilize what was available to meet the need and to stick with it until the need is met Meaning that the moderate would throw out just the right amount of rope with a life vest other device to help the person, and then would hold onto the rope and pull the person in and if this were somehow impossible...
In my case, I am unable to throw well so I would ask for help from all bystanders or, call in the harbor patrol if
they were available... I would use anything to meet the need and to save the man.

I have seen there are not the social structures in my time that are healthy enough to do things for those who are in need other than the government which at least has the money and has the people who are physically and mentally able to help, I see nothing wrong with utilizing both to help to meet the needs. It is much better than seeing the needs go unmet.

I have learned from history. I have seen too much abuse by large businesses and the darwinist economy that those who are conservative seem to love to abide by.

Yet I also have the Catholic moral values... against abortion, capital punishment, unjust wars which put me in the conservative and liberal camps.


A label is a box that allows no change, and no growth.

Destiny has his label and he is happy with it.

I would rather not be labeled because for me the labels are inaccurate.

Destiny,

Wondering if you really just like the constitiution without the case law that goes along with it...

Are you aware that the Constitution by itself does not grant as many rights to us as it does along with the case law...

Why would you sacrifice rights that are granted to the people because of case law? the right to privacy and others that are not written into the Constitution.

Your strict interpretation actually lessens the limitations on government instead of decreasing them...

Do a bit more reading and you will see that I am correct in this. The Founding Fathers were for the case law to flesh out the Constitution. Your desire to hold to strict interpretations is like that of Bush and results in dictatorships rather than individual rights in its application.

I am thinking you need to read it again yourself.

The right not specifically reserved to the Federal Government is reserved to the People (Individuals) or to the State.

Just as countries are Sovereign Nations, people are Sovereign Individuals.

From my knowledge of the laws, there are many instances where case law (as you call it) have actually diminished individual rights.

It is the rights of the individual that this country was founded on, not group rights.

Individual rights take precedence, and the government is subject to the limitations that is imposed on it by the Constitution.

The Founders actually worried about lawyers diminishing the Constitution, and case law has no bearing on it whatsoever.

Constitutional Law is what has bearing on the Constitutional, and case law is limited by it.

For your information, the Constitution is a legal document an is NOT a living instrument.

Strict interpretation is the ONLY interpretation permitted because the Constitution means just what it says.

It can be added to by Amendments, but it can never taken away from.

Do you actually believe that Bush is working according to the Constitution? He has had several things overturned as unconstitutional.

Clinton had some things overturned as well.

Strict application of the Constitution will not result in a dictatorship, but not following it surely will.

This whole NWO and NAU/SPP idea along with the V-Chip and the FED are all things that are not good for Americans, and all of these things are unconstitutional... as is the desire to remove the Electoral College.

As to the rest, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

The 9th Amendment as you mentioned without the enumerating it, stated that there were rights that were not mentioned in the Constitution which belonged to the people and also that the rights not specifically reserved to the Federal Government is reserved to the People (Individuals) or to the State. The rights to privacy were extrapolated from this Amendment and they are now under attack by those who would prefer that they did not exist. And the "those" I mention are corporations who desire to target advertising and to find information that they are not entitled to and also the government that would like to know all for a variety of reasons.

I am totally in agreement with your comment: "Just as countries are Sovereign Nations, people are Sovereign Individuals."

You said, "From my knowledge of the laws, there are many instances where case law (as you call it) have actually diminished individual rights." And there are also areaa where case law has added to rights...


It is the rights of the individual that this country was founded on, not group rights. I would add that the rights of the group are assumed to be the rights of a collection of individuals whether that be a gathering of worshippers at a church or at a union... the same rights and liberties granted to the individual should apply to the group as well.

You are again correct here..."Individual rights take precedence, and the government is subject to the limitations that is imposed on it by the Constitution." I would also state that it perhaps is also true that the Constitution deals not with the giving of rights because we already have them innately but instead with the prevention of the removal of our rights by the government.

You said, "The Founders actually worried about lawyers diminishing the Constitution, and case law has no bearing on it whatsoever." Bur case law provides historical background and the main framer of the Constitution had this to say about historical background...
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government" -- James Madison

You stated, "For your information, the Constitution is a legal document an is NOT a living instrument."
The framers of the Constitution made sure that the Constitution was a living Constitution, a living document... meaning that they set it up to be flexible and easily adapted to the needs of future generations. The fact that it is indeed a living document is why it still exists today. There are three ways in which the Constitution is a "living" document: the formal amendment process; the informal amendment process; and custom, usage, and tradition.

You said, "Strict interpretation is the ONLY interpretation permitted because the Constitution means just what it says." I would state here that this argument regarding strict and loose interpretations of the Constitution is an old one... as Alexander Hamilton was for a loose interpretation and even talked about an elastic clause which Thomas Jefferson was for a strict interpretation of the Constitution. So we probably are not going to solve this problem here.

You said,"It can be added to by Amendments, but it can never taken away from." That is true... at least I think that it is.

You said, "Do you actually believe that Bush is working according to the Constitution? He has had several things overturned as unconstitutional.
Clinton had some things overturned as well." I am well aware that he has not been working in support of the Constitution in a lot of instances... I believe that I mentioned this earlier... He though uses it when he feels like it against the people...
Ignoring the 9th ammendment and sabatoging the 4th ammendment while stating that he is for a Conservative View of the Constitution and one that provides the strengthening of the Executive Branch.

"Strict application of the Constitution will not result in a dictatorship, but not following it surely will." Expanding on it through the addition of history and context is still following it... so we are in aggreement here.

You said, "This whole NWO and NAU/SPP idea along with the V-Chip and the FED are all things that are not good for Americans, and all of these things are unconstitutional... as is the desire to remove the Electoral College."

I am wondering where you got the NWO and the NAU/SPP and the V-chip from... as they are far away from the rest of the discussion we were having. And are not something that I support. And most liberals that I have met are deathly against these things... It seems like these are backed mostly by corporate interests who are operating outside of the whole debate regarding Constitutional law.

We are in agreement regarding the Electorial College.
It was the other things that we disagreed on.

And we are both entitled to our own opinions...
It was good to debate with you Destiny...
Thanks for the excuse to get into the Constitution a bit more... It was refreshing and thanks Chaz for tolerating us.

chazh9 Thanks again... You are great!

Insofar as the rope thing is concerned, dear White Bird, I would have tied the damn thing around a stump before I through it down! Sometimes I am Radical, sometimes I am Liberal, sometimes I am Moderate, sometimes I am Conservative. It depends on the issues really. It is just that I tend generally to be a bit liberal and humanistic, but I have my moments (as you know!) when I feel it warranted to be a bad a#s or at least a bit of an imp. LOL. Don't take life so serious, life is too mysterious. Not really...yes...really.

I would just clarify this point...

"I am wondering where you got the NWO and the NAU/SPP and the V-chip from... as they are far away from the rest of the discussion we were having. And are not something that I support. And most liberals that I have met are deathly against these things... It seems like these are backed mostly by corporate interests who are operating outside of the whole debate regarding Constitutional law."

The reason I mentioned those items is because they are very relevant and real events that are transpiring now or are soon to be implemented ... and everyone of them either threaten our sovereignty as a nation or our individual rights to privacy... both of which violate the Constitution on at least one point and probably several others as well.

The New World Order is something I first heard about in the 1970's, which I had put down to conspiracy theory until I heard one of the Bush's mention it in a speech.

North American Union/Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America... I heard the terms open borders and such other crap with this, along with plans to switch from the dollar to the Amero and create a transportation corridor that bisects the US and joins Mexico and Canada.

Check the map showing the corridor on this link...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/SPP.shtml

Mexico's Vincente Fox did verify some of this on TV last year.... I think it was Larry King but am not positive.

As to the V-Chip... that is 100% a privacy issue... with no other purpose then to track a person's movements.... When it includes your private and financial information, and all transactions are dependent on that chip... all they have to do is turn that chip off and you can no longer by or sell.... you simply cease to exist as far as the system is concerned.

So I think these things are very relevant to the discussion, and very dangerous to the liberties and freedoms that our Constitutions protects.