- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The US Federal Government - It's Not Supposed to Expand Easily
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:42 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:42 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Big government, reaching everywhere is the norm now and it was the exception, at the federal level, prior to the election of FDR.
Wickard v. Filburn, the roofie slipped into the drink of America
3
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:53 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
quote:
So our system is supposed to be one that can't do anything or fix problems that need fixing.
When the Republicans have control of the government again, and the problems that they think need fixing are counter to your interests, I suspect you'll be singing the praises of executive restraint and legislative gridlock.
This isn't about conservative versus liberal, or at least it shouldn't be. Just take your least favorite politician and think about what would happen if they had such extraordinary power. If you don't like that idea, your dislike should apply equally, regardless of a politician's ideology or party loyalty.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wickard v. Filburn, the roofie slipped into the drink of America
nice characterization.This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Wickard v. Filburn, the roofie slipped into the drink of America
People were afraid, and when they're afraid, they give up an awful lot of their liberty.
Freedom is sometimes scary, but I don't think it's worth trading for most anything.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 12:57 pm to Tiger n Miami AU83
There was an interesting article in this mth's Esquire magazine re Congress & why it does not work. There were several examples given, but one that stood out, and there are quotes from both Democrats & Republicans confirming this fact: basically, politicians in D.C. work one day a wk at their jobs in Congress. They fly out on a Thursday to return to their district, for fundraising for the most part, return to D.C. on Tues, late, and then, "work" on Wed. One by product of this is that members of Congress do not get a chance to get to know their peers across the aisle, so no working relationships are developed.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 1:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
in practical effects, it largely is. look at the vast difference in regs for guns in Cali/NY and LA or TX
And what is the current position of the "non-statists" re guns? More or less incorporation?
And what about the 1st Amendment? Are they pushing to have it unincorporated (I'm guessing it's the most fully incorporated of them all.)
You obviously know the answers to these questions, which makes the "non-statists" quite hypocritical.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 1:37 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
And what is the current position of the "non-statists" re guns? More or less incorporation?
i reckon a non-statist doesn't even believe that the 2A is an issue, b/c the government should not have the power to act in that manner regardless
the absence of power negates the need for a comment clarifying the fact that the state cannot do x in a particular area
quote:
And what about the 1st Amendment?
same standard
a neutered state doesn't have the power to affect the behaviors listed in the 1A
Posted on 11/20/14 at 2:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
The GOP was the Party of Big Government and Big Business in its infancy.
The Dems have become the Party of Big Government and Wealth Redistributing Marxist/Socialists.
So, now we have two parties of BIG GOVENMENT.
One wants to grow the economy and one wants to control all of the fruits of everyone else's labor.
Go figure.
The Dems have become the Party of Big Government and Wealth Redistributing Marxist/Socialists.
So, now we have two parties of BIG GOVENMENT.
One wants to grow the economy and one wants to control all of the fruits of everyone else's labor.
Go figure.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 2:12 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:Certainly, that was the clear intent of the "founding fathers." But incorporation derives from the 14th Amendment, and Black's appendix in Adamson v. California is a pretty powerful case that the legislative intent of that Congress was to incorporate the Bill of Rights.
Couldn't we say the same thing about incorporation? Wasn't the clear intent of the "founding fathers" that the Constitution would only apply to the feds and not to the states?
Posted on 11/20/14 at 2:18 pm to Iosh
even if we want to argue that the 14A incorporates the BOR, it's still 50-60 years prior to any sort of belief that the federal government should have the power it does today. it took a LONG time after the 14A for Wickard to come down. the 2 ideas are not really congruent
it is an interesting thought to imagine how society would have developed differently had the BOR never been included (as the original version of the Constitution did not believe they were necessary, due to the limited power of fedgov)
it is an interesting thought to imagine how society would have developed differently had the BOR never been included (as the original version of the Constitution did not believe they were necessary, due to the limited power of fedgov)
Posted on 11/20/14 at 3:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
courtesy of hemphead...and God and stuff
quote:
There is also a passage from the book of Samuel that illustrates government very well,
quote:
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
Posted on 11/20/14 at 3:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Oh absolutely. In fact, I think they're contradictory. I have long argued that consistent libertarians should favor expansive interpretations of the Bill of Rights, and narrow interpretations of Article I, Section 8, since the former limits government and the latter empowers it.
even if we want to argue that the 14A incorporates the BOR, it's still 50-60 years prior to any sort of belief that the federal government should have the power it does today. it took a LONG time after the 14A for Wickard to come down. the 2 ideas are not really congruent
This leads me to default to a judicial activist stance since I believe a deferential judiciary will ultimately get walked over. A skeptical judiciary that overturns more laws is healthier (up to a point, but we're on the far end of that point at present).
This post was edited on 11/20/14 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 11/20/14 at 4:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i reckon a non-statist doesn't even believe that the 2A is an issue, b/c the government should not have the power to act in that manner regardless
Let's talk real-world people who you are appealing to with this thread: i.e. "small government conservatives" and "states rights" types. I believe that the "founding fathers" did, in fact, leave MASSIVE room for states to exercise their rights...up to and including infringing free speech and arms ownership. But curiously, one never hears an appeal to "original intent" when it comes to incorporating those items.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 5:34 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
"small government conservatives"
most conservatives aren't for "small govt" they are just for "their govt",,, lot's of police, (state) and lots of military are among their things.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 5:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
Go back to the bill of rights and look at the 10th Amendment. Nobody gives a shite about the constitution really. The founders dream of America is dead, and probably was dead before any of us were born. Now it's just every interest group for itself, whoever cries the loudest wins.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 6:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
The size and scope of the federal government has expanded under every presidential administration in your lifetime, and it will continue to do so.
Posted on 11/20/14 at 8:50 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
Wickard v. Filburn, the roofie slipped into the drink of America
Funny way to think about
"The switch in time that saved nine"
We covered this semester too
Got an awesome Professor
I was discussing the possibility of any negative effects from the New Deal with my wife tonight. I've still gotta a bunch to learn with our History so bear with me. This stuff is interesting while very important and I'm just trying to become a better citizen. Lots to learn with the "New Deal" effects, that's for sure. When I get time from studying/homework I will study all this more so. It's such a huge deal that changed America and maybe even the world too. It's amazing how much that time period during The Deal, WWI, & WWII effected the world moving forward. Not sure, but I wonder if the New Deal was a final nail in a real free market USA, and was it a victim of bad things happening from good intentions. At least many have been kept from suffering but will that be at a bigger suffering price in the future? Not sure, but I'd like to learn to see if preventing natural crashes from happening let huge business grow into the monster we have today? Up and downs in the economy would've hurt, but seems it could've kept huge monopolies from growing, and I guess one could compare it to a forest burning after it gets to thick. New growth comes from that burnt forest and that's a good thing in Nature.
Plus with Governments New Deal doings. Interest groups are put on steroids, and have become the monsters they are today. I find it kinda ironic that some who love makign government grow but at the same time dislike interest groups. Government actions feed the making of interest groups, and we've lost our mind after 9/11 by the way. OK enough of my scatted-brained-thoughts....lol
Great thread by the way
Posted on 11/20/14 at 9:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Just read about this ... that's batshit insane.
Wickard v. Filburn, the roofie slipped into the drink of America
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News