Well, this explains a lot...

[Harry P.]

The propaganda is equally simplistic on both sides. And human nature being what it is, people tend to believe whatever "propaganda" supports their already held opinions. Conservatives listen to the conservatives and liberals listen to the liberals. So all the noise coming from the left and the right doesn't do anything except further divide the left and the right. There is no one side guilty of it. It comes from both sides.

[aurfalien]

The propaganda is equally simplistic on both sides. And human nature being what it is, people tend to believe whatever "propaganda" supports their already held opinions. Conservatives listen to the conservatives and liberals listen to the liberals. So all the noise coming from the left and the right doesn't do anything except further divide the left and the right. There is no one side guilty of it. It comes from both sides.

Nicely put Harry.  Agreed 100%.

It's unfortunate that we can't seem to agree to disagree these days.  Talking politics angers as much as talking religion these days.

[Matt Bacon]

But the fact is, the Constitution is the basis of our government. Whatever it says, that's the law. And if it's not in the Constitution, well, that would make it by definition unconstitutional. 

...I'm not sure that's true. Fair enough, if something is in the Constitution, then whatever it says is the law. But the constitution can't possibly cover every possible legal eventuality about every possible thing, never mind good manners, engine maintenance or falling in love. That's why there are laws and statutes, Haynes manuals, and Cole Porter. The fact that they cover matters that the constitution doesn't surely doesn't render them unconstitutional...? Do you really need a constitutional amendment to set up a school system?

bestest,

M.

[mike 51]

So every point of view is "propaganda"?   Well not really....this is why these conversations are largely a waste of time and energy, many people decline to use our language correctly. 

There reasons we have so many words...but they are useless if used incorrectly.

 

 

[Harry P.]

It all depends on how strictly you want to look at things. A strict "Constitutionalist" would argue that the powers and functions of the Federal government are clearly enumerated and defined in the Constitution, and the gamut of what the feds are supposed to do ends there. If it's not clearly granted by the Constitution, the federal government has no Constitutional right or basis to do it.

Then there are those who feel that the Constitution is a "living" document that can be fudged or changed–or ignored–to meet whatever ends they want to achieve.

Like I said, it depends on how strictly one adheres to what the Constitution spells out and how faithful you are prepared to be to it.

[Harry P.]

Matt... an example.

Recently the US Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is legal.

I am not taking sides on that issue, not saying whether I agree or disagree... but just want to point out that there is no mention whatsoever anywhere in the Constitution that grants the government the right to decide what "marriage" is. So many people believe, therefore, that the federal government has no standing to dictate what is and isn't a legal marriage; it's a local/state issue.

Just one example. There are many others

[Harry P.]

Do you really need a constitutional amendment to set up a school system?

If it's a federal school system... then technically, yes.

If you grant the government free reign to create new laws or assign itself new powers at its discretion, then what's to stop the federal government from, for example, taking control of the media, ala North Korea?

If the Constitution is deemed irrelevant, then there's nothing to stop the government from doing whatever it wants to do!

[Matt Bacon]

Recently the US Supreme Court ruled...

And I thought that the Constitution specifically established the Supreme Court and the third branch of the Federal Government to deal with "controversies between states, between citizens of different states, and between citizens of one state and another state", which would seem to fit the case you raise nicely -- how can you be legally married in one state with all that implies,  and not in another? In the single nation that America now is, it is absolutely NOT a local/state issue...

bestest,

M.

[Harry P.]

 In the single nation that America now is, it is absolutely NOT a local/state issue...

I'm saying that many people believe it is a state/local issue, as it had always been. In exactly the same way they feel that education is a local/state issue, and not a function of the federal government.

 

[Harry P.]

Matt, here's an interesting article regarding whether the legal definition of marriage falls under the federal government's jurisdiction...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-combs/marriage-equality-is-it-a-federal-issue-or-a-state-issue_b_2040588.html

[DaveM]

Comparing the United States to European countries misses the point.  The United States were a collection of separate states that banded together with a limited federal government for defense, commerce and common goals.  It would be more appropriate to compare the U.S. to the E.U. (Along with N.A.T.O. for some of the functions)   with its 28 separate nations coming together, but still retaining their individual identities.  Let's see how well that works a few decades down the road when the E.U. declares that students in Sweden, France and Turkey all need to learn the same lesson on the same day.  (From the same outline and in the same language!)  

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution gives all powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution to the states.  This is where things went awry for the U.S.A.  Over the past 227 years, the United States has transformed from a group of states working together, to a single federal government that exercises absolute power over the states.  The way the government gets around the Tenth Amendment is to tax every citizen of the U.S., and give back the money to the states that comply with the rules on highway construction, speed limits, school curriculum, building codes and all of the other minutiae it dictates.  For example, the Fed is prohibited from making absolute laws for highways, as that is one of the areas the Constitution leaves to the states, but they get around this by taxing us for billions and billions of dollars, and then giving the states that comply with their requests some of their own money back.  There is a real struggle right now between the states and the federal government to divide up these left over powers.   That is the quick and dirty explanation to those outside the U.S. as to why the American schools are resisting some of the reforms so much. 

[Harry P.]

Dave... well stated. You are absolutely correct, all powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution fall to the states. And for years now, the federal gov't has slowly but surely expanded its role and its presence in our lives in ways that are blatantly unconstitutional, IMO.

Good analogy to the EU, too. That's a great example.

[Snake45]

Yikes!   I wonder why so many Americans have become so reactionary in recent years...is it,in part, because the music we all enjoyed was replaced by simplistic right-wing propaganda that obsesses a noisey minority?

I, for one, would prefer NOT to repeat the 1930s...and the results.

 

No, I think it's because the news media and the educational system that helped make this country great have been replaced by simplistic left-wing propaganda designed for people who can't or don't want to think or work too hard.

[aurfalien]

No, I think it's because the news media and the educational system that helped make this country great have been replaced by simplistic left-wing propaganda designed for people who can't or don't want to think or work too hard.

Yea, talk about Occam's razor gone way way way bad.

Leading an introspective life is un heard of.

PS It would be a funny skit;

Rod Serling;

Picture a world were phones think for you...

                    Were introspection does't exsist and all ppl think about are boners and boobs...

                                        You have entered... the year 2010's...

 

Edited January 6, 2016 by aurfalien

[CometMan]

I can't speak for the rest of you guys, but myself, I've had enough "of the people", and I'd like to try some "by the people" and "for the people"!!

[Snake45]

I can't speak for the rest of you guys, but myself, I've had enough "of the people", and I'd like to try some "by the people" and "for the people"!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You've got it right. Right now we have government "ON the people, IN the people, and TO the people." And I've had enough of it, too.

My old Dad used to say, "Vote everybody who's in OUT, and vote everybody who's out, IN." I'll be doing exactly that this time around. Hey, it couldn't get any worse.

[Matt Bacon]

Comparing the United States to European countries misses the point.  The United States were a collection of separate states that banded together with a limited federal government for defense, commerce and common goals.  It would be more appropriate to compare the U.S. to the E.U.

That was nearly 250 years ago. It would be appropriate to compare the United States in 1800 to the EU, I agree. Today, not so much...

bestest,

M.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Matt Bacon

[Matt Bacon]

i think I'm going to recuse myself from this discussion, and agree to differ. I don't want to get into a fight with any of my friends on this forum, and this is inevitably shading towards the political. Two countries divided by a common language, and all...!

It's been interesting, but, certainly on my side, enough said.

All the best,

M.

[SfanGoch]

You're almost right. There are differences. United States - Still a constitutional republic.

European Union - oligarchy. 

The U.S. Constitution contains 7,591 words including the 27 amendments on four pages. It is easily comprehensible and can be read by the average person in a comparatively short period of time. Quoting James Madison: 

 “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”

The EU Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty, on the other hand, runs some 66,497 words. Including the various annexes and declarations, this total grows to 154,183. The printed two-volume version weighs around two pounds. It is ponderous, difficult to read and is chock full of impregnable technical language comprehensible only to bureaucrats. The framers of this document seemed to have had W.C. Fields in mind when they put it together:

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with b******t.”

Sometimes, less is more.

 

[peteski]

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You've got it right. Right now we have government "ON the people, IN the people, and TO the people." And I've had enough of it, too.

My old Dad used to say, "Vote everybody who's in OUT, and vote everybody who's out, IN." I'll be doing exactly that this time around. Hey, it couldn't get any worse.

Oh yes it can - and it will. No matter which party gets in. Trust me on that one.

Edited January 11, 2016 by peteski