You might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots!

sudden valley gunner · Jan 20, 2014

OC for ME said:
Yes, Americans are more special, but I'm biased on this issue.

Fortunately a great many of my fellow citizens agree with me, I believe, on our "specialness" yet remain firmly entrenched on how the "state" should be treating law breakers. Reasonable folks can disagree on the implementation, but the founding principle is generally agreed upon by all.....except liberals.

I fully expect a exception to become manifest regarding the "generally agreed upon" part.

I see what you are saying. To me It would be like the locals here thinking the Seahawks are more special than a team from another state.

It's in the eyes of the beholder.

Of course there is nothing wrong with loving the land of your birth/residence and your fellow country men.

countryclubjoe · Jan 20, 2014

" The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is Constitutional and that which he doesn't like is Unconstitutional"

We look to the history of the time of framing and to intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time..

Can any of Us seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee...

My .02

Best regards.

CCJ

wimwag · Jan 20, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Not necessarily true, there are a few privileges citizens have, like participating in the government and voting.

Rights are not granted to the "citizens" of U.S. other wise they are not rights.

Illegals do that too. They get jobs in law enforcement and vote multiple times in presidential elections.

OC for ME · Jan 20, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
I see what you are saying. To me It would be like the locals here thinking the Seahawks are more special than a team from another state. It's in the eyes of the beholder.

Of course there is nothing wrong with loving the land of your birth/residence and your fellow country men.

I love South Carolina, which is located in America. I love America because without America there would be no South Carolina. I tolerate Missouri only because the money is pretty darn good here.

Technically, westward expansion started east of a eastern mountain range. The gateway Arch should be located over the intersection of Landrum Rd. and Interstate 26, Exit 1 in SC.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 20, 2014

OC for ME said:
I love South Carolina, which is located in America. I love America because without America there would be no South Carolina. I tolerate Missouri only because the money is pretty darn good here.

Technically, westward expansion started east of a eastern mountain range. The gateway Arch should be located over the intersection of Landrum Rd. and Interstate 26, Exit 1 in SC.

Interesting historical analysis with truisms.

Many moved to the Northwest to escape to a more free area.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 20, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
" The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is Constitutional and that which he doesn't like is Unconstitutional"

We look to the history of the time of framing and to intervening history of interpretation. But the ultimate question must be, what do the words of the text mean in our time..

Can any of Us seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee...

My .02

Best regards.

CCJ

Unfortunatle true.

Look at those who excuse the statist judges decisions in favor of the state against constitutional provisions as magically becoming constitutional.

A great book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, by Kevin Gutzman. I had to read it 3 times because some of the accurate history he presents is so contrary to the beliefs I had held due to years of central statism apologia.

Spooner in his book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery makes a similar point as yours, and concludes that original intent doesn't matter as much as what the law says. We all know some founders intended to legalize slavery by the constitution, yet that hypocritically conflicted with their natural law theories, it ends up that the constitution did not technically legalize slavery.

Rusty Young Man · Jan 20, 2014

eye95 said:
I have no idea is Jeff Foxworthy is actually responsible for these words, but they are funny, and many of them have a lot more than a grain of truth.

Got any of your own?

Being founded by geniuses and run by idiots is not unique to our nation! One other example comes immediately to mind...

If a LAC is ostracized for shooting a violent criminal in self defense, but the criminal was "just a victim of society trying to make a living" — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your calls for the government to obey the Constitution and balance the budget makes you a "right-wing radical", but calling for curtailment of rights and increased spending makes you a "moderate" — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

OC for ME · Jan 20, 2014

Slavery was neither lawful, nor unlawful. It was left to the states to decide. I wish other controversial issues were left to the states to decide. Strict interpretation?.....no money in it.

countryclubjoe · Jan 20, 2014

When the document was completed on the 17th of September in 1787 the very eloquent beginning of WE, the people. Did not include many many of its people.. But through the process of amendment,interpretation and court decisions many were finally included in " We, the people".

Also some mandates were not "discovered' until many, many years later. IE. The right to have counsel at a preliminary hearing.
See Coleman v Alabama (1970)..

" It is indeed an odd business that it has taken this court nearly two centuries to " discover' a constitutional mandate to have counsel at a preliminary hearing." Warren E Burger.. Dissenting opinion ( Coleman v Alabama) 1970..

Regards

CCJ

wimwag · Jan 20, 2014

OC for ME said:
Slavery was neither lawful, nor unlawful.

Bigot alert!

countryclubjoe · Jan 20, 2014

OC for ME said:
Slavery was neither lawful, nor unlawful. It was left to the states to decide. I wish other controversial issues were left to the states to decide. Strict interpretation?.....no money in it.

Hi OC

See McCulloch v Maryland

USSC ruled that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and takes precedent over any state law incongruent with it.

Regards

CCJ

countryclubjoe · Jan 20, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Unfortunatle true.

Look at those who excuse the statist judges decisions in favor of the state against constitutional provisions as magically becoming constitutional.

A great book is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, by Kevin Gutzman. I had to read it 3 times because some of the accurate history he presents is so contrary to the beliefs I had held due to years of central statism apologia.

Spooner in his book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery makes a similar point as yours, and concludes that original intent doesn't matter as much as what the law says. We all know some founders intended to legalize slavery by the constitution, yet that hypocritically conflicted with their natural law theories, it ends up that the constitution did not technically legalize slavery.

Hi SVG

I have read Gutzman, just finished his " Who killed The Constitution". I highly recommend.
Also you will enjoy " The Living Constitution" by David A Strauss...
Strauss is a constitutional law genius and is a strong believer in the pragmatic path of the common law.
Regarding Spooner, did you read No Treason," A Constitution Of No Authority" If yes, your thoughts, if no, I highly recommend..

Thank you for the referrals and best regards.

CCJ

sudden valley gunner · Jan 21, 2014

countryclubjoe said:
Hi SVG

I have read Gutzman, just finished his " Who killed The Constitution". I highly recommend.
Also you will enjoy " The Living Constitution" by David A Strauss...
Strauss is a constitutional law genius and is a strong believer in the pragmatic path of the common law.
Regarding Spooner, did you read No Treason," A Constitution Of No Authority" If yes, your thoughts, if no, I highly recommend..

Thank you for the referrals and best regards.

CCJ

Who killed the constitution is a great book!

Haven't read Strauss....I don't like the idea of a "Living Constitution" though.

I have read only excerpts of A Constitution of No Authority, I downloaded it but for some reason it didn't come out right on my reader. I don't agree with all of Spooners reasonings but his logic on most things can't be beat.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 21, 2014

wimwag said:
Bigot alert!

What an asinine assertion.

All OC did was make a statement of fact, if you can conclude he is a bigot because he knows his history better than you, that would be an amazing trick.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 21, 2014

A couple of months ago on a morning radio show, I labeled myself a bigot bigot.......

It appeared Wigwam was attempting to paint someone as an ethnic bigot because of his statement of history.

eye95 · Jan 21, 2014

Nightmare said:
A conservative and/or 'l'ibertarian talkshow host that I listened to before he retired had an interesting rule. He would not allow a particular disparaging epithet to be used on his show without the caller-luser first properly defining it. I would here extend that rule to all disparaging epithets, especially bigot. We all are bigots else we wouldn't care enough to play here on OCDO, bigot according to the control freaks.

I think we can all safely conclude the kind of bigot that poster was referring to. In which case, he is WAY off-base.

OC for ME · Jan 21, 2014

I am not too keen on yankees.
Most folks from North Carolina.
Most folks from Georgia (especially Bulldawg fans).
All Clemson fans (I'm a Gamecock alumni).
Mizzou entering the SEC.
Folks who root for Tennessee over Vanderbilt.
Anyone who thinks that barbeque sauce must have some variant of tomato products in it.

Other than the above, I ain't no bigot.

beebobby · Jan 21, 2014

If a majority of Congress believes that we need to give the rich more money in order to motivate them, but at the same time they think that the only way to motivate the poor people is by giving them less, you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses, but is run by idiots.

OC for ME · Jan 21, 2014

The poor have more than they did five years ago. And, there are more poor than there were five years ago.

beebobby · Jan 21, 2014

The proportion of America’s households that live on less than $15,000 a year is as high as it was in 1989, while the proportion on more than $200,000 has gone up by two-thirds, so no, the poor don't have more money.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-09-30/taking-aim-at-the-gops-war-on-the-poor

You might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member