Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #61  
Old 04-02-2012, 03:54 PM
stephen.king stephen.king is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
And they provided a legal binding way for it to grow and and change. It is called the amendment process. With the exception of prohibition most all of those changes have been to the betterment of the country and the constitution.

Anything that is changed in this manner I will concede is the will of the majority. End runs, mandates and legislating from the judicial bench are not the proper procedure.
Not so much. They also provided a court system that subtly changes the document every so often through interpretation. Since that's what the judicial branch(ish) had been known to do long before the Constitution was considered, if that wasn't what they wanted, why did they make that branch equal in power to the others?

In any event, you go and get folks to amend the Constitution to allow for an Air Force and I'll believe you when you say it should be interpreted strictly or that it limits the Government's powers through strict enumeration in the absence of specific amendments. The fact that we assume that the Founders really meant Congress could raise whatever kind of military made the most sense means that we can assume they really meant other things as well.
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #62  
Old 04-02-2012, 04:19 PM
Inspired Ink's Avatar
Inspired Ink Inspired Ink is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-03-11
Location: East Texas
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen.king View Post
The fact that we assume that the Founders really meant Congress could raise whatever kind of military made the most sense means that we can assume they really meant other things as well.
Not sure I'd agree with that being the basis of an argument -- only because if you are appealing only to this well ... it's only a matter of technology that has changed things.

They might have envisioned a cavalry and a navy. OK, so tanks were invented, and airplanes. I don't think updating the mode of transportation is the same kind of argument that says they also meant every other facet was open to similar re-interpretation.

I'm not arguing that the Constitution can't be amended ... only saying that the lack of a provision for an Air Force doesn't necessarily lead to saying all other aspects of our documents were intended to be open to reinterpretation from the start.
 
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-02-2012, 04:25 PM
Czorny Czorny is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 03-21-12
Posts: 103
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Ow...I see all this stuff is about the Congress and other US realia...
But the starter question seemed universal.

Just wanted to say that I bet I'm the last man to ever be asked about a government's purpose, for...*sadly and sarcastic* Hell knows, I'm Belarusian.
 
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-02-2012, 04:43 PM
Inspired Ink's Avatar
Inspired Ink Inspired Ink is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 12-03-11
Location: East Texas
Posts: 710
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czorny View Post
Ow...I see all this stuff is about the Congress and other US realia...
But the starter question seemed universal.

Just wanted to say that I bet I'm the last man to ever be asked about a government's purpose, for...*sadly and sarcastic* Hell knows, I'm Belarusian.
No, by all means, feel free to answer the original question from a universal standpoint.

We tend to get off on tangents at times and discuss details at other times. Don't feel you are locked out of the discussion because of that.

But please also don't also feel snubbed if people continue on in the direction they've started until they are satisfied they are finished with that part of it ... I've had it happen to me.

Please, join in though.
 
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-02-2012, 04:53 PM
Czorny Czorny is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 03-21-12
Posts: 103
iTrader: 0 / 0%
yeah, I do get that. People might be too stubborn sometimes to make them pay their precious attention to your humble personality (unless you're damn naked)
 
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-02-2012, 04:53 PM
Nealrm Nealrm is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-06-12
Location: Jackson Mo
Posts: 250
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Government forces us to do what people with a lick of damn common sense should've been doing all the time, and people get all whiney about it. I look at it as government just protecting me from having to pay for the idiots who think their liberty is more important than doing the smart thing for their family's health.
So - the government should force us to do what anyone with a lick of damn common sense should. Does that apply outside of health insurance? Smoking?? Eating too much?? Not exercising?? Drinking?? Free climbing?? Starting a business?? Having a child later in life?? The government is not in the business to protect us from ourselves.

Quote:
They also provided a court system that subtly changes the document every so often through interpretation.
No they did not. Your example of the navy and army is incorrect. The constitution give congress the power to raise armies (not an Army), a navy and a militia. An army is a group of individuals trained in fighting. Our current Air Force is clearly a group on individuals trained in fighting. So it fall easily into the historical definition of an army. The air force was also founded as part of the army.

Section V clearly states the ONLY way the constitution can be changed.
 
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-02-2012, 05:07 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 14,038
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Airplanes are just ships that fly instead of float. That is why the boss is called Captain.
 
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-02-2012, 05:40 PM
stephen.king stephen.king is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nealrm View Post
So - the government should force us to do what anyone with a lick of damn common sense should. Does that apply outside of health insurance? Smoking?? Eating too much?? Not exercising?? Drinking?? Free climbing?? Starting a business?? Having a child later in life?? The government is not in the business to protect us from ourselves.
Well, now that's a good question. Government also tells us we can't drive over a certain speed. And that we have to buy auto insurance if we're going to drive. I'd say your line on what government shouldn't make us do is in a different spot from mine, but I hope by now you'd agree there's a line, rather than an absolute "we should be free to do whatever we want" kind of stance?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nealrm View Post
No they did not. Your example of the navy and army is incorrect. The constitution give congress the power to raise armies (not an Army), a navy and a militia. An army is a group of individuals trained in fighting. Our current Air Force is clearly a group on individuals trained in fighting. So it fall easily into the historical definition of an army. The air force was also founded as part of the army.

Section V clearly states the ONLY way the constitution can be changed.
Wow. I've NEVER had anybody try to squirm their way out of that argument by calling the Air Force an army. I guess if you're going to go that far, there's no point arguing much more, though I do know some Zoomie friends who would probably want to argue further.

Just...wow.

All I'm sayin' is that if you're not going to require an entirely literal interpretation of the Constitution, then you need to be honest and get off your high horse in requiring the other side to adopt an entirely literal stance when it suits your argument. I mean, Christians by and large have adopted that form of "when it suits me" logic ever since Leviticus was made part of the Old Testament, but it's not fair, and it's not intellectually honest.

Wow--the Air Force, an army? Seriously?

As for the last quip--I know, I've read it. Taken several law classes, in fact, one specifically on that document. The Supreme Court has been reinterpreting the Constitution for a lot longer than anything related to health care has been debated. So no, whether you recategorize the Air Force as an army or not, Section V isn't the ONLY way that document can be changed.
 
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-02-2012, 05:42 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Someone help me out here. Was the constitution heavily debated at the time it was written?
 
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-02-2012, 05:57 PM
stephen.king stephen.king is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket View Post
Someone help me out here. Was the constitution heavily debated at the time it was written?
Extremely. Some patriots like Patrick Henry were entirely against it. In fact, one can call the Federalist Papers the first propaganda piece in the U.S., because they were published by Madison et al under pseudonym as a means of getting people over to their side. New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, and a couple other states only ratified the Constitution under condition of the first Ten Amendments being there. There were many people, though, who thought the Constitution went too far to create a single nation, and others who thought it didn't go far enough, which is pretty normal for legislation, I think.
 
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:02 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen.king View Post
Extremely. Some patriots like Patrick Henry were entirely against it. In fact, one can call the Federalist Papers the first propaganda piece in the U.S., because they were published by Madison et al under pseudonym as a means of getting people over to their side. New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, and a couple other states only ratified the Constitution under condition of the first Ten Amendments being there. There were many people, though, who thought the Constitution went too far to create a single nation, and others who thought it didn't go far enough, which is pretty normal for legislation, I think.
Lately, I am finding myself fascinated by history, especially United States history. Clearly I wasn't paying attention in school.
 
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:15 PM
ScriptMan's Avatar
ScriptMan ScriptMan is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 02-10-07
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 14,038
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket View Post
Someone help me out here. Was the constitution heavily debated at the time it was written?
Very much so and with great passion. It almost was a deal killer because of the many different interests. The initial bill of rights was the compromise that clarified and sealed the deal. Without those it would have never been signed.

So even then people with a common interest argued over what should be done. They worked it out by respecting each other and the even the beliefs of those with whom they disagreed. They sought 'common ground'.

Now back to my normal self, they fought for what they believed, they were not bought and and paid for by the lobbyist with the most cash to pass out. They had no reelection plans to consider. May God give us some patriots to meet the current challenges.
 
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:31 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
...
Now back to my normal self, they fought for what they believed, they were not bought and and paid for by the lobbyist with the most cash to pass out. They had no reelection plans to consider. May God give us some patriots to meet the current challenges.
My current fascination with government and history was likely sparked by reading "The Appeal" by John Grisham. Yes, I realize it is a work of fiction but it made me realize how easily money could corrupt the very core of those things we believe. Just my 2 cents and I should prolly put on a foil hat, but it does make me wonder a bit.
 
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:36 PM
stephen.king stephen.king is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScriptMan View Post
Now back to my normal self, they fought for what they believed, they were not bought and and paid for by the lobbyist with the most cash to pass out. They had no reelection plans to consider. May God give us some patriots to meet the current challenges.
Must be nice, having a normal self. But you're absolutely right.
 
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:41 PM
stephen.king stephen.king is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cricket View Post
Lately, I am finding myself fascinated by history, especially United States history. Clearly I wasn't paying attention in school.
It doesn't matter, Cricket. The theory is that nobody at that age can truly understand the implications of the whys that were behind the whats and the whens, so it's not taught. Thus, there are a lot of kids these days that can tell you when the War of 1812 was fought, but not why. Ten years later, the when made such little difference that they've even forgotten that. This gives us a general public that will stand and cheer as we march merrily to war in Iraq despite warnings that it's the next Vietnam, even countering with (and no ****, I heard this not once but several times), "No, it's not another Vietnam. Vietnam was all forested and jungles while Iraq is desert."
 
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:43 PM
robjones's Avatar
robjones robjones is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen.king
Wow. I've NEVER had anybody try to squirm their way out of that argument by calling the Air Force an army. I guess if you're going to go that far, there's no point arguing much more, though I do know some Zoomie friends who would probably want to argue further.
The Air Force actually was a branch of the US Army until around the tail end of WW2... the Army Air Corps.



I'm not looking up the dates right now, but I think it was spun off as a separate branch just post war. We'd had planes in the military thru two world wars, it was split off basically for command and control purposes.

It's a military operation that was in existence within the army for decades. The first amendment doesnt just afford freedom of the press to handset type and quill pens, and the second doesn't just apply to flintlocks. I dont really see the Air Corps as defying the constitution.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	220px-United_States_Army_Air_Forces_Recruting_Poster_-_2.jpg
Views:	1330
Size:	35.2 KB
ID:	16115  

Last edited by robjones; 04-02-2012 at 06:50 PM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:51 PM
stephen.king stephen.king is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
The Air Force actually was a branch of the US Army until around the tail end of WW2. Prior to that it functioned as the Army Air Corps.

I'm not looking up the dates right now, but I think it was spun off as a separate branch just post war. We'd had planes in the military thru two world wars, it was split off basically for command and control purposes.

It's a military operation that was in existence within the army for decades. The first amendment doesnt just afford freedom of the press to handset type and quill pens, and the second doesn't just apply to flintlocks. I dont really see the Air Corps as defying the constitution.
Yes, it was a branch of the US Army. I graduated from West Point, the institution that actually trained most of the early Air Force officers. I got so interested in the argument that I went back and re-read the National Security Act of 1947 (http://intelligence.senate.gov/nsaact1947.pdf), wondering if it somehow justified the creation of another branch by calling it an army somehow. It does not. This isn't just a technology thing; it's not just flintlocks versus rifles. If the framers had just meant fighting forces, they would have said fighting forces. But they said, specifically, armies and Navy. If you're going to trust that they wrote what they meant, you HAVE to accept that they wrote what they meant. Army. Navy. No Air Force.

Granted, they were all too happy at the end of WWII to worry about distinctions like this, but what they did by signing that document was violate the Constitution, IF you believe in a strict interpretation. If you don't, as I do not, then they did the right thing. But if you do, then maybe it's time to go retroactively Amend that perfect and timeless document.

EDIT: to make my point clearer, go read the second amendment and tell me where they wrote anything about flintlocks. They didn't, did they? They said "arms" which was what they meant.

EDIT2: Sorry, I'm getting too short tonight. To bring the point to a close: yes, the framers could not possibly have known that some day there would be an air force. They also could not possibly have known there would be a nation-wide health care crisis. So if you're going off the "if they didn't know about it, it's okay" then your argument still loses.

Last edited by stephen.king; 04-02-2012 at 06:55 PM. Reason: more
 
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-02-2012, 06:59 PM
Cricket's Avatar
Cricket Cricket is offline
No Longer Active
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Location: Texas
Posts: 42,181
iTrader: 0 / 0%
My brain hurts from thinking too much! Now I have a zillion more thoughts to research!
 
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-02-2012, 07:05 PM
robjones's Avatar
robjones robjones is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 09-15-09
Location: Texas
Posts: 9,680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen.king
EDIT2: Sorry, I'm getting too short tonight. To bring the point to a close: yes, the framers could not possibly have known that some day there would be an air force. They also could not possibly have known there would be a nation-wide health care crisis. So if you're going off the "if they didn't know about it, it's okay" then your argument still loses.
By that I gather you don't know my what argument is to begin with. I argued for a stronger health care initiative than the one in place. My opinions are my own, they arent dictated by a national party.
 
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-02-2012, 07:15 PM
stephen.king stephen.king is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 01-30-10
Location: Biloxi, MS
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by robjones View Post
By that I gather you don't know my what argument is to begin with. I argued for a stronger health care initiative than the one in place. My opinions are my own, they arent dictated by a national party.
Well, no, I wasn't tracking past arguments so I wasn't aware of that, but I believe my point still stands. "IF you're going off the...then...." Were you trying to make an argument against the constitutionality of the health care initiative based on the fact that the framers could not have known about a need for an air force?

For what it's worth, I agree with you on the need for a stronger health care initiative. I just get tired of people making the case against greater health care access for all based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution without really considering what that means. The Air Force issue is the easiest to address, but there are others. The Constitution is a beautiful document, but it's NOT being taken literally, even if it were originally meant to be.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is There Any Purpose of Doing SEO Other Than Getting Traffic getSenior SEO Forum 24 03-20-2011 01:01 AM
What is the purpose of PR and how do you increase your PR? gregdavidson SEO Forum 22 05-12-2008 11:32 PM
What is the purpose of this? GeXus SEO Forum 8 07-02-2004 02:30 AM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC