gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
...if the founding fathers of this country would have been more specific or more clear when they wrote the Constitution if they were aware of the following:
-Someday, a government will try and ban the sale of certain LEGAL items in restaurants.
-Ban the use of tobacco in PRIVATELY owned businesses
-Force private citizens in private modes of transportation, to wear seatbelts
-Outlaw business to be open on certain days of the week based on religious beliefs
I mean think of all the controlling laws that are based on pure NONSENSE. Seriously, does anyone think the founding fathers would have had second thoughts?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2019
|
|
You said:
-Someday, a government will try and ban the sale of certain LEGAL items in restaurants.
My response:
Such as?
You said:
-Ban the use of tobacco in PRIVATELY owned businesses
My response:
Any privately owned business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC has to follow the laws. Including passing a health and fire code inspection. I, for one, am very glad that smoke addicts are no longer allowed to expose my kids to their vile addiction in public anymore. It's nice to be able to breath without actually smoking in someone else's secondhand smoke.
You said:
-Force private citizens in private modes of transportation, to wear seatbelts
My response:
Driving is a privilege. Not a right. Oh, and you forgot to add that they government also forces them to get INSURANCE on the vehicle.
You said:
-Outlaw business to be open on certain days of the week based on religious beliefs
My response:
All the business owner has to do is file a lawsuit against the state that passed a law enforcing a religion on the public. It will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.
You said:
I mean think of all the controlling laws that are based on pure NONSENSE. Seriously, does anyone think the founding fathers would have had second thoughts?
My response:
The founding fathers put into the Constitution the ability to add amendments. Seems to me that they pretty much did think ahead.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
"Such as?"
Umm, the SODA thing you commented on below...
"Any privately owned business that is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC has to follow the laws. Including passing a health and fire code inspection. I, for one, am very glad that smoke addicts are no longer allowed to expose my kids to their vile addiction in public anymore. It's nice to be able to breath without actually smoking in someone else's secondhand smoke."
Then you should go to places where the OWNERS want your business enough to stop the smoking. But it should be up to the OWNER, not the government. Perfect example, in Del Mar, California, you can't smoke OUTSIDE. ANYWHERE. You can't smoke in a TOBACCO SHOP in many places.
"Driving is a privilege. Not a right. Oh, and you forgot to add that they government also forces them to get INSURANCE on the vehicle."
Nope, they have an option, you can self insure, look into it.
"All the business owner has to do is file a lawsuit against the state that passed a law enforcing a religion on the public. It will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court."
Sure, so the small business owner, who is already drowning in debt from government regulation, "only" has to file a court case with the SUPREME COURT...sure, no problem.
"The founding fathers put into the Constitution the ability to add amendments. Seems to me that they pretty much did think ahead."
But they could have been MUCH clearer, by limiting the power of the government (as that is what the Constitution is, a LIMITATION on government action).
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
spinnerdegrassi
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/20/06
Posts: 8013
|
|
Times change. It's like the bible. I don't care what the intent of the men who wrote that thing originally. They couldn't take into account society changes and you can't maintain a strict set of ideals indefinitely because they were never all correct in the first place, and thus not fully relevant as society altered.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
You know, that is about the most INTELLIGENT and COMMON SENSE FILLED post I have seen here in a LOOONG time, LOL.
Personally, I have often wondered if this country has become to large to continue to govern it in this manner. I mean when you have a room with 30 or 40 people in it, its easy to come to a concensus, or at least a majority and a compromise. Not so easy in a building with 535 people in it, all with their own agendas and ideas.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
finz
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/17/08
Posts: 6495
|
|
I like to believe they left the details 'vague' KNOWING things would change.....and the PRINCIPLES were supposed to matter, not getting bound up in the fine print that wouldn't address the NEXT big issue.
The NY 'too large soda' issue is mind boggling to me. On the great political continuum, I'm generally more on the left (with googledad !) than I think most on this forum are. The soda issue issue is one of those of over government interference that embarrass me regarding the politicians that I normally tend to 'side' with.
Some of our big news in Boston this week was about a similarly absurd issue with Mayor Menino promoting bicycle issues. I think it's a good thing to raise awareness of bicyclist rights and roadway issues....but having legions of bicyclists, that normally wouldn't be there, parading into Boston from 7 to 9 am on Friday mornings during PRIME commuting hours ? Doh !
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
Sorry, but they would have allowed all those things. They would have left it up to each individual State. The Constitution was based, in significant part, on the fear of a centralized federal government that was too powerful. Any power not specifically given to the Federal Government was reserved to the States.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
And I think that would work if the power was distributed to the states. But the Arizona immigration law issue is a perfect example. The state of Arizona is being financially harmed and criminally harmed by Mexican citizens crossing the border. They have decided to DO something about it. The Federal government says, "No, you cannot do that, it is OUR job to do that...and we are doing the best that we can." So Arizonians are paying more in lives and assets than they would pay for their current security assets (police, sheriff, State Police, etc) to stop the flow of ILLEGAL citizens invading their state.
It seems CLEAR to me that a state would have a right to DEFEND itself from a foreign invader.
I am telling you, I hope it is political and bloodless, but I fear it will not be, a reckoning on the status quo is coming. The pot is boiling over and it can make a mess. Worst part is, I don't think we as a people will turn down the heat, I think we will all sit at home and wait for the first images of the overflow on YOUTUBE.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8146
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
Agreed. The Federal Government has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to extend its reach in almost un envisionable fashion. However, your view that some revolution is afoot, to me, seems rather absurd and best reserved for the back woods militants that are waiting for race warfare.
|
Goodmom
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/17/07
Posts: 2019
|
|
You said:
Umm, the SODA thing you commented on below...
My response:
Not every state is doing this......
You said:
Then you should go to places where the OWNERS want your business enough to stop the smoking. But it should be up to the OWNER, not the government. Perfect example, in Del Mar, California, you can't smoke OUTSIDE. ANYWHERE. You can't smoke in a TOBACCO SHOP in many places.
My response:
No, the SMOKERS should just stay home if their addiction is that important to them. They have no RIGHT to expose my kids or me to their secondhand smoke. If the OWNER is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, it makes their place of business a PUBLIC PLACE. And subject to ALL OF THE PUBLIC LAWS when it comes to health and safety. And, yes, secondhand smoke IS a health issue. You want to kill yourself by smoking, fine, leave the rest of the non-smokers out of it. Which a smoker does not do everytime they light up in public. And leave their cigarette butts on the beach or when they just drop them on the ground and walk away.
You said:
Nope, they have an option, you can self insure, look into it.
My response:
I am aware of that. But I was exercising common sense and recognizing that not everyone would be able to prove that they can self-insure themselves. Either way, driving is a privilege not a right. And you are required to do a lot more than just wear a seat belt in order to obtain a license. I used to think that the seatbelt law was a violation of rights. Fortunately, I matured enough to realize that that isn't the case.
You said:
Sure, so the small business owner, who is already drowning in debt from government regulation, "only" has to file a court case with the SUPREME COURT...sure, no problem.
My response:
At least you recognize that all the business owner has to do is file a lawsuit should they want to spend the money.
You said:
But they could have been MUCH clearer, by limiting the power of the government (as that is what the Constitution is, a LIMITATION on government action).
My response:
The founding fathers would not have changed a thing in the Constitution.
So, since you are so against the power of the government, is it safe to assume that you absolutely hated Bush?
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
