Government
Comment: Congress Reads Constitution Out Loud
- Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:54am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Editor’s note: Although the recitation is over, we will leave this story up to allow people to comment. Readers can watch video of the opening part of the reading below. However, readers are encouraged to read our two follow-up stories, one on the birther interruption and the other regarding the early interruptions and political wrangling by two Democrats and one Republican.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 591 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 381 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 381 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (135)
RightPolitically
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:37amWonderful. It is about time too! Let’s do this at the beginning of every new House term (every 2 years) as long as Republican (conservatives) control the house!
Report Post »fourfreedom
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:34amWords with out action is like the air blowing across you face, it gives you a momentarily sensation.
Report Post »Lets hope and pray they take heed of what they have read, heard, and sworn an oath to uphold. It is time for them to show WE THE PEOPLE action. We are watching!
So help us God.
RPGZero
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:32amI wish they had just chosen one person to read the entire thing, or at least one person per article. It feels strange to hear it broken up.
Also, they seriously should have let Ron Paul read the part where it says only gold and silver shall be made legal tender. I had no clue who that lady was who read it.
Report Post »dwhitlow
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:32amKeep a close eye on Congreesman Jeff Duncan of South Carolina. Good man.
Report Post »EP46
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:31amSuch an historical moment has once again been made into a mockery. The Original Constitution should have been read as written. This idea of so many people reading is ridiculous. The only thing here is getting their name called and their face on camera. Could we not have one day when something, such as the Constitution, is more important than these people? We are witnessing what these servants of the People see as important, that being themselves. The reading could certainly have been divided into a few different sections, giving each side an opportunity to participate. But could not this have been done without interruption? Could this have not been done in a continuous way placing the importance on the document being read and not who is doing the reading? Each person could have simply continued in the reading without the interruptions to get their ‘name’ on record. Such a wonderful moment in time for our Nation once again replaced by the ‘importance’ of the people gathered. Will these people ever be humbled ?
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:23pmYou can tell how much weight they put on this by how many are sitting in their seats.
Report Post »evilbert
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:29amActually a good idea since 99% of all representatives and Senators have never read the document. They still not abide by it, but now they can never say they didn’t know or was not aware of what it says.
Report Post »youngnation
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:23amAmendment to come.
Report Post »Sensco
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:20amThis is still interesting nonetheless. It’s like they are trying to start back to the basics.
Report Post »Haha! Kudos ShinetheLight! You are probably right.
handsoffmystuff
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:19amwow…. look at how many folks raise eyebrows… as if to think… “I didn’t know that was in there”
Report Post »conservativeme
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:12amI bet the likes of Barbara Boxer and Maxine Walters have learned a lot today!
Report Post »Warphead
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:19pmDon’t make that mistake my friend.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:11amFive bucks the only people in the room are those that are reading and their staffers.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:04pmI doubt the staff are in there either .. basically the only ones hearing the whole document are in the gallery or those of us online or on tv.
Report Post »Holly Woods
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:11amThis indeed is a sacred document. One that many great Americans have fought for and dedicated their lives too. It is hard to believe that the reading of the Constitution before those who have sworn to uphold it is a “historic” event.
This 2011 Congress is off to a good start and setting a good precedent!
Report Post »Rokoll
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:10amAny congress critters hearing this for the first time eva’ ?
Report Post »Mikee T
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:10amAnd of course the black congressmen has to get his “dig” in there…..in other words…..had to make a reference inferring that “dedacted” material be omitted….blah blah blah…..There is nothing in the original document that demeans either blacks or women……..that is a ploy….and age old ploy by progressives……..to remind that “black gentelemen congressmen”…..(and I didn’t recognize him…not trying to be disrespectful)……..the people that were FOR SLAVERY AND SEGREGATION wer southern democrats………period……..The republicans….especially from the northeast….are who fostered…supported and fought for blacks and women to have equal rights in this nation….I’m so tired of having to reiterate these things……..
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:24amNot just southern democrats, there were tons of northern democrats that were all for it as long as they were taking their ships to Africa, buying them from the muslim blacks there, bring them to the US and selling them to the southern democrats.
The south started breeding their own, the cotton gin greatly reduced the economic viability of slaves since there was no longer anything for them to do in the winter, and steam power had eliminated the need for manufacturing up north on the fast moving rivers. The north had to attack the south, we were no longer buying slaves, were freeing the ones we had, and were building manufacturing plants in the south, the money train had dried up. They had to come take what they could, and burn what they couldn’t, the same thing is happening again, all the wealth is once again leaving the north. I hope history doesn’t repeat, don’t know what the scape goat will be this time, since they can’t use the slavery lie again.
Report Post »EP46
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:38amJessie Jackson could not explain the 3/5 rule if his life depended on it. And IT WAS not counting 3/5 of a PERSON…..it was counting 3/5 of the PEOPLE. in certain states ..because of the great difference in the population of some states.
Report Post »iamhungry
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:25pmIt was still counting each non-white person as 3/5ths as important as a white person.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:57pm@iamhungry
Not “3/5 as important as a white person”. Please read your history. The 3/5 provision was placed in the document to keep the Southern states from having over-representation due to having slaves, which assured the Northern states of some ability to stop slavery in the future. If every slaver were “1 man” then the South would have been highly over represented, ergo, they would have had more legislators in the House and could have voted to make slavery a permanent feature in these united States. In short, it was a “compromise” of sorts, though the South viewed it in the racist lens like you do and were therefore duped into accepting it. Ultimately it ripped power from them and allowed the eventual prohibition on slavery being allowed in newly petitioning states. Which led to the Civil War, which led to the abolition of slavery.
If your view of “1 man!” held sway, we’d still have institutionalized slavery today. Be glad, very glad, that many of the Founders had foresight and were able to outsmart those who were for slavery, and didn’t go down your politically correct path.
Report Post »excelizen (a goal, not a title!)
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:10amI don’t know if I feel like weeping for joy or that our country has lost its way to the point that this is necessary. I just pray they have ears to hear and the courage to follow through!
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:24amAgreed.
Report Post »ConsChristian
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:07amPraise God for the leaders who love this country and our constitution!
Report Post »Non-sequitur
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:14am*Let’s read this here constitution to pretend we care about it. Those chumps will eat it right up!*
*watches chumps eat it right up*
ConsChristian
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:28amNon-Sequitur,
Shhhh. You of all people should be listening to this.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:07am***** you are a Hypocrite !
Report Post »sarahchar09
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:08pmplease explain how you came to that conclusion?!
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:17pmTARP was not constitutional, and for the matter
Report Post »neither is the Patriot Act both things had the support of *****…
snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:39pm@Tower
As I understand the constitution, you are correct that both the Patriot Act and the TARP are totally unconstitutional. Has anyone sought to challenge these two legislations in the federal courts?
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:58pmYou are correct Tower. Boener was a RINO before his name was known outside of Ohio, and he will continue to be one now, just you watch. Where he’s dangerous is that he seems at times very genuine. As a caution, do not listen a whit to what he says or how he says it, watch instead what he does.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:01pmgood point SNOW, where is the ACLU ???
Report Post »Funny how that works, although we have no hope if it
gets to the supreme court the Deck has been stacked for NWO
every i has been doted and t’s crossed.
akelso
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:05amWhen? I’ll be watching!
Report Post »ShineTheLightBrighter
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:05amProbably the first time some of these members have heard or read it in full.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:02pmNow if they will follow it …
Report Post »Cliff
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:05amis it just me… or does it seem that the dems are now publicly attacking the constitution???
Report Post »MHP
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:04amDemocrats are trying to stop the reading of the Constitution of the United States.
THEY ABSOLUTELY HATE IT. ****** me off.
I been awake since 4 am for this.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:20pmSome people will never be Awake
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:35pm@Tower
Unfortunately that is quite true. I have a friend who is a imigrant from china, came over just after the end of WW2, and she has told me the stories of the rape of Nanking and other atrocities that would make anyone have nightmares for weeks.
Some kids listening to her story did not believe such things could ever happen.
That is sad indeed. Just as you stated, some people will never Awaken.
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:57pmSo SNOW should we just call it quits and move to Costa rica ?
Report Post »I am feeling that there is no hope .
And I do like the art, it kinda grows on ya…
Rich HOffman
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:03amThat’s a great start!!!!!
Let’s see if they still do this kind of thing a few months from now. If they do, then I‘d say it’s special.
http://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:01am***** please tell me how TARP 1 was constitutional ?
Report Post »http://blog.reidreport.com/2010/09/flashback-john-bailout-boehner-cries-begs-colleagues-to-vote-for-bank-bailout/
iamhungry
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:50pmThat never happened. Obama passed the TARP by himself in the middle of the night even though all the Republicans were completely against. I know cause they told me so.
Report Post »Cacique
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:01amI hope they mean what they say & say what they mean!!! Follow our established rules (Constitution) & everything will be alright!!!!
Report Post »Cliff
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 10:59amGod bless America!!!
Report Post »snowleopard3200 {cat folk art}
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:04amIndeed, let this be a new beginning in the nation; God above, please let them remember they work for us, and answer to us the people of the land. May our nation reign long in the light from above, and in freedom for everyone.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:06amI’ve read the Constitution already.
Don’t get me wrong, I‘m glad they’re doing this in a sense. But let’s see if it amounts to more than showmanship and attempts to get us tea party types to sigh and say “ok, do whatever you like”.
I want a live video of every bill being passed along with commentary on its Constitutionality. That’s my kind of video. :)
Report Post »tower7femacamp
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:10amEric Cantor and TARP
When it first came before the House of Representatives, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was defeated after House Republicans failed to deliver on their promised votes. At the time, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) and other House Republicans circulated a plan that, instead of authorizing the government to purchase toxic assets, would have it ensure hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages.
Cantor claimed that the plan “does not leave the American taxpayers with the bag and makes sure that Wall Street pays for this recovery.” However, as economist Robert Waldmann noted then, “I can’t manage to find any reason to doubt that the House Republicans’ plan would destroy the US financial system,” as it actually gave mortgage holders an incentive to push for defaults (since the U.S. would explicitly cover the losses).
As it turns out, former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson didn’t think very much of Cantor’s plan either (or the GOP response to the economic crisis, as a whole), and in his memoir derides Cantor’s “unformed” proposal:
Report Post »http://www.progressivenewsdaily.com/?p=877
Was the TARP constitutional ?
tower7femacamp
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:11amThis will bring new meaning to the words Lip Service !
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:14amNotice the distain in Wiener’s voice. He doesn’t sound like he has any love for the document!
Report Post »gman46
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:16amThis will help them keep things in perspective when they pass law’s, they will have to defend it against the constitution It’s definitely a good thing!
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:17amIt’s not being read as written. What a sham. The Republicans haven’t learned a damn thing.
The purpose of amending the Constitution by APPENDING TO IT is to have a record of changes. The Constutution must be understood in the context of the history of its appended amendments.
We are in a crap load of trouble, America! Arm yourselves.
Report Post »crnman38
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:22amThis is a wonderful thing…anyone that has a problem with our elected representatives reading aloud the very documents that they take an oath to protect and defend is…. the 1 with a serious problem.
MAYBE…Just maybe…this might make some of these people reflect….and possibly truly understand what this nation was TRULY built upon. ……we can only hope
I am curious…..is it mandatory for everyone to be present for this? and will everyone from all parties get up and read a portion of it?
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:28amRediculous – have one person read it and be done with it. Bring in a professional speaker that has a true affinity for our founders.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:31amWhy is Rangle allowed to read? Obviously his punishment was just a slap on the wrist.
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:33amHahahaha – Birther!!!
Report Post »pajamash
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:35amThat gallery outburst will make the news. They will most certainly label the individual a Tea Party member no matter if it is true or not.
Report Post »Tayper
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:47amSNOWLEPARD
Amen
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:47amThey skipped Article Four, Section Four!
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”
Report Post »AzDebi
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:52amWE THE PEOPLE…e3 in ACTION…for those who wish to find negativity in this…I say, “When have you ever seen this IN YOUR LIFETIME?”…You have NOT! God Bless America and all those who have banded together to be HEARD!
Report Post »tommee
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:54amThe Preamble to the Constitution reads: “We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Please note that the Preamble to the Constitution reads, “We the people of the Untied States”, not as some want us to believe, “I the individual of the Separate States”. It also reads “in Order to form a more perfect Union”, not as some prefer to believe, “in Order to form a more perfect Separation”. It also reads, “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare”. Note the words, “common defense” and “promote the general Welfare”. They are words of community and society, not the self-centered individuality of conservative talking points.
Section 8 of the Constitution – on the Powers of Congress, gives Congress the “Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States”. Again, contrary to what some conservatives would have us believe, the Constitution calls for the Federal Government to collect Taxes to promote the Freedom and the General Welfare of it’s citizens. Yes, the Constitution expressly calls for the Federal Government to collect Taxes in order to promote the General Welfare of it’s citizens!
If one really reads the Constitution as it truly is, one would have to conclude that the government truly is the solution not the problem, the complete opposite to Ronald Reagan’s mantra, “Government is not the solution but the problem”.
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:59amAgree with GhostOfJefferson.
This amounts to little more than showmanship and cheap political ploys if they don‘t follow what they’re reading.
I pray they actually follow it.
Report Post »ShineTheLightBrighter
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:04pmWas it me or did they skip Sec 3 & 4 of Article 4-The States addressing New States and that we have aRepublican Form of Government? I did not hear it, did anyone else???
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:19pm@tommee
Oh my. That’s called creating a straw man and knocking it down. You argue against words that you put into the mouths of your adversaries, declare victory and that your way must be the right way.
Debate 101 classes, rarely required in public schools any longer, would break many people of these rather elementary mistakes.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:20pm@Tommee,
“Note the words, “common defense” and “promote the general Welfare”. They are words of community and society, not the self-centered individuality of conservative talking points.”
You are mistaken.
Federalist Papers, #41:
“Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.”
Report Post »crnman38
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:21pmI must say, after watching some of this…sad…sad….they have screwed this thing up by changing people after 1 or 2 sentences….its ridiculous…each person should have read a whole lot more to truly get this across….they spend more time introducing everyone than actually reading….looks like just a good photo op for everyone….this could have been a really good thing….sad that it sucks
Report Post »Ellie
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:22pmI came in late and sure enough they have been missing/skipping several paragraphs along the way. As can be seen by the attempts by others on this thread to construe the constitution as a collectivist document, a straight reading without first reading the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and explanations as to the context and background of the amendments at the time of passage is really only lip service.
It is however good to see that Congress knows where to find a copy and that they at least understand the desire for the People to be reassured that it, as the Supreme Law of the Land, is still considered a limitation on their power.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 12:37pm@Tommee
“It also reads “in Order to form a more perfect Union”, not as some prefer to believe, “in Order to form a more perfect Separation”.”
Prior to the Constitution, America’s Founders were loosely united under the Articles of Confederation, which governed the 13 Colonies. “a more perfect Union” refers to the less perfect Union of the 13 Colonies.
So even under the smaller governmental structure of the Articles of Confederation than the Founders intended the Constitution to establish, the Founders considered that a Union. The reason is because under the Articles of Confederation, as under the Constitution, the Founders understood the goal of both was to secure individual liberty, and those under both forms of government were UNITED in that cause.
Today, this idea is probably best expressed in the cliche: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it”.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:04pm@Tommee
Also, to my earlier point about “a more perfect Union”, that is something that the Constitution accomplished. The Founders, IN ORDER TO form a more perfect Union, DID ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America.
The Progressives would have you believe that this clause was “Progressive” in nature, in that it was an ongoing process. Not true – that’s what the amendment process is for. The “more perfect Union” was attained in the establishing of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Report Post »tommee
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 1:29pmTo a DOCTORS LABOR IS NOT MY RIGHT:
I suggest you pay a little more attention to what is actually written in the Constitution instead of looking for interpretations or intentions to satisfy your personal dogma. The interpretations of the Federalist Papers were not read in the House today, rather, the actual Constitution – a document written with very carefully chosen words – was read.
An objective reading of the Constitution sees an attempt to bring together individual States and the citizens of those States, into a Union that has a central government – a government that collects taxes to promote the defense, freedom and general welfare of all the people within that Union of States.
The Constitution goes to great lengths to point out how the Federal Government should be set up and run. Turns out it is to be a government by the people, for the people, not an institution that is the enemy of the people.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:10pm@tommee,
“I suggest you pay a little more attention to what is actually written in the Constitution instead of looking for interpretations or intentions to satisfy your personal dogma. The interpretations of the Federalist Papers were not read in the House today, rather, the actual Constitution – a document written with very carefully chosen words – was read.”
So it’s not ok for me to appeal to intent, but its ok for you to do so? On what basis did you come to the conclusion that the Constitution was written with very carefully chosen words?
“An objective reading of the Constitution sees an attempt to bring together individual States and the citizens of those States, into a Union that has a central government – a government that collects taxes to promote the defense, freedom and general welfare of all the people within that Union of States.”
An objective readin of the Constitution takes into account the context and intent. It’s called textual criticism.
“The Constitution goes to great lengths to point out how the Federal Government should be set up and run. Turns out it is to be a government by the people, for the people, not an institution that is the enemy of the people.”
And what do you suppose a government that is NOT of, by, and for the people would look like? This is a very important question for you.
Report Post »Dustyluv
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 2:29pmYommee…You are free to shoot yourself in the head…2nd ammendment. Please do so.
Report Post »tommee
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 5:30pmHi DOCTORS LABOR IS NOT MY RIGHT:
Here are a couple examples of a government that is NOT of, by and for the people.
A government is not woring for the people, nor is it following the Constitution when it allows millions of it citizens to have no healthcare, resulting in the deaths of thousands each year. How does this promote the general welfare? It even fails the “common defense” clause of the Constitution by not fighting the enemy of disease. Disease may not carry a gun, but it is just as deadly as any enemy of the State.
A government that allows it’s financial institutions to operate in unregulated free markets, so that they can speculate by creating trillions of dollars of secret, naked securities and derivatives, is not a government for the people. The unregulated gambling went sour and taxpayers were forced to bail out the money masters, who by the way still got their billions in bonuses and record profits – and the economy still sucks. Because the government failed to control the financial monopolies, they were deemed too big to fail, and posed a risk of collapsing both the U.S. and the world economies. Good thing for the good old hard working American taxpayer, the guy whose wages are decreasing every year.
A government that is bought and sold by corporate interests to the point where it allows mishaps like the above described near financial disaster is surely not in the interest of the general welfare. Special interests with lots of cash have corrupted our political system. Those who believe the Constitution says the government has no business in the workings of private enterprise are condoning practices by big business that are responsible for today’s problems. Large multinational corporations have absolutely no allegiance to the United States. Their goal is to profit, pure and simple. They don’t care if millions of Americans lose their jobs to lower paid workers overseas. They make more money that way. When a government fails to stem the tide of runaway corporate greed that hurts America, it is an example of a government that is neither by nor for the people.
Your right-wing, free-market, deregulation, “government is the problem”, interpretation of the Constitution has caused untold damage to the United States and it’s citizens. Not only are Americans dying because of no healthcare, the economy and the American way of life is also dying. Rather than working to promote the general good of it’s people, the government is working for multinational corporate interests and big money who couldn’t care less about the United States.
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 6, 2011 at 11:00pmUPDATE!
Crap, I put the wrong link for this comment: “And Unions are trying to go global (global Communism), see here: “Scuffles in the Labor Ranks” (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_41/c3903003_mz003.htm#ZZZW55LQQZD).”
I can’t find the original link I was looking for, but this one will work, too: “Obamas Right hand Man Andy Stern of SEIU” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSllsTLkBsw).
Report Post »A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right
Posted on January 9, 2011 at 2:57pm@tommee
While I expected you to respond to my question in the context of the Constitution at the time the Founders wrote it – that is to ask, what were the kinds of government at the Founders’ time that moved them to make “of, by, and for the people” such an issue – what you responded with will work just fine.
“A government is not woring for the people, nor is it following the Constitution when it allows millions of it citizens to have no healthcare, resulting in the deaths of thousands each year.”
First of all, if health care were a right, then you could compel doctors to provide their services – but this is slavery, isn’t it. (You might notice my handle: “A Doctors Labor Is Not My Right”. That’s how I came up with my handle.)
Second, allowing millions of citizens to choose to not pay for health insurance, actually honors the People’s wishes, whereas Obamacare will seek to take the People’s right to refuse to participate in commerce.
Now, there’s a point I wish to make as to how your response relates to my question of what kind of governments come to your mind that would not be “of, by, and for the People”. And that is, that your belief about millions of citizens not having health care only makes sense if you see them as individuals.
See, when governments decide to treat you as part of a collective, then they can simply decide that some people should not get health care because the collective society will suffer if you do. For example, George Bernard Shaw said:
“You must all know half a dozen people, at least, who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say, “Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight, and since you won’t, if you’re not producing as much as you consume, or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”"
“How does this promote the general welfare? It even fails the “common defense” clause of the Constitution by not fighting the enemy of disease. Disease may not carry a gun, but it is just as deadly as any enemy of the State.”
“[P]romote the general Welfare“ does not mean ”promote welfare” – there is a reason that the word “welfare” is preceded by “general”; it’s because 1) the word “welfare” meant “well-being” to the Founders, not “welfare programs”, and 2) the Founders specifically wanted to keep people from thinking that they meant that the government should promote any specific sense of well-being (as evidenced by The Federalist Papers #41).
The “general Welfare” is the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, justice, property rights – our unalienable rights.
“Common Defense” meant defense against people who wished us harm. Remember that the context of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence in which the Founders declared themselves enemies of Big Government.
“A government that allows it’s financial institutions to operate in unregulated free markets, so that they can speculate by creating trillions of dollars of secret, naked securities and derivatives, is not a government for the people. The unregulated gambling went sour and taxpayers were forced to bail out the money masters, who by the way still got their billions in bonuses and record profits – and the economy still sucks. Because the government failed to control the financial monopolies, they were deemed too big to fail, and posed a risk of collapsing both the U.S. and the world economies. Good thing for the good old hard working American taxpayer, the guy whose wages are decreasing every year.”
It was Big Government Progressives that got us off the Gold Standard, which allowed speculation to become the problem it is. You don’t get to create the problem, and then blame someone else for it. You can’t have financial monopolies (the Federal Reserve Bank) or money masters, if you’re on the Gold Standard; And the money masters are simply working within the Progressive structure – one that was designed to collapse, I might add.
An unregulated free market, simply put, is individuals creating or buying what they want or need, and selling those things that other individuals want or need. That’s WHY people work at all, is to create or earn sustenance and wealth for themselves – and wealth doesn’t get created UNLESS we work.
If you want to trade paper (money) back and forth with nothing to back the worth of that paper (quantitative easing), well that’s your fault – everybody knows paper is just about worthless. No one can save you from yourself.
It was the Big Government Progressives (Democrats and Republicans) who deemed some businesses too big to fail, when they should have been allowed to collapse. And it was Big Government Progressives who believe in a “global economy” and who have been working around the world to link all of our countries together, economically, SO THAT they could collapse them all – which is one good reason I offer that if the Progressives (Democrats and Republicans) decide they don’t want to shrink the government to below what the private sector can afford (without raising taxes), then the United States must be allowed to default – this is the best choice among those that the Progressives will have left us with, but again, the collapse will have been by Progressive design, a la Cloward and Piven.
“A government that is bought and sold by corporate interests to the point where it allows mishaps like the above described near financial disaster is surely not in the interest of the general welfare. Special interests with lots of cash have corrupted our political system.”
First of all, buying government is wrong, no matter who does it. But there’s a difference between government being bought, and government adhering to the constitution, such that each individual is benefitted in the same manner. Pro-Constitution constituents are naturally going to be benefitted more than Anti-Constitution constituents (oxymoron?), so simply because, for example, a rich person is able to better utilize a Constitutional provision than a poor person, does not mean the rich person is receiving preferential treatment, or is “buying” government.
Second, Unions are a special interest. Normal people want to earn what their labor is worth, and it’s only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. But Unions artificially increase the cost of goods, which makes everything more expensive.
You might find this interesting, too.
Unplugged: The SEIU chief on the labor movement and the card check
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/10/stern-unplugged-seiu-chief-labor-movement-and-card/
“As for SEIU, every four years, two things happen: our union’s convention and our country’s presidential election. For four years we save our money and then on the fourth year we spend it all. If we were trying to be a bank and not an advocate for our members’ interests, our members would be really disappointed. We are not a savings institution.
“We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it.”
“Those who believe the Constitution says the government has no business in the workings of private enterprise are condoning practices by big business that are responsible for today’s problems. Large multinational corporations have absolutely no allegiance to the United States. Their goal is to profit, pure and simple. They don’t care if millions of Americans lose their jobs to lower paid workers overseas. They make more money that way. When a government fails to stem the tide of runaway corporate greed that hurts America, it is an example of a government that is neither by nor for the people.”
Large multinational corporations are multinational because of crippling government regulations here in the United States – you can, again, thank Big Government Progressives for that.
The lack of allegiance by large multinational corporations to the United States, again, is the fault of Big Government Progressives due to their push, as was mentioned before, to globalize the economy in the Communist sense. There are many United States businesses who very much love this country, but find it hard to prosper under all the government regulations.
As for companies not caring if millions of Americans (or people in general) lose their jobs – THEY GO TO WORK TO BENEFIT THEMSELVES! That’s why they work, is to support themselves and to make themselves wealthy – THEY DON’T OWE US JOBS! If some company can do something more efficiently and cheaper with a robot, rather than a person, THEY SHOULD DO IT! Each person is responsible to make their own living – which is a lot easier in an unregulated economy.
“Your right-wing, free-market, deregulation, “government is the problem”, interpretation of the Constitution has caused untold damage to the United States and it’s citizens. Not only are Americans dying because of no healthcare, the economy and the American way of life is also dying. Rather than working to promote the general good of it’s people, the government is working for multinational corporate interests and big money who couldn’t care less about the United States.”
Health care is available to anyone if they can afford it. It costs something for doctors to provide it; and wealth is not a class distinction.
The economy and the American way of life is dying due to crippling government regulations.
“General welfare”, again, does not refer to welfare programs (see above).
Government is working for multinational corporations because the Big Government Progressives actually believe in multinationalism (global Communism) – which is why the Federal Reserve, which is a creation of Big Government Progressives takes our tax dollars and allows other countries’ hands in our cookie jar (Oh, and Obama is trying to force us to do business with China, Russia, and India – multinationalism, indeed).
Obama, himself, has claimed to be a “citizen of the world”. And Unions are trying to go global (global Communism), see here: “Obamas Right hand Man Andy Stern of SEIU” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSllsTLkBsw).
The problems we are facing today were caused by Big Government Progressives (Democrats and Republicans). Your regulated “government is the solution” interpretation of the Constitution will enslave you, and take away your individual liberty, and you as a person will ultimately be irrelevant in the societal scheme of things.
“[The Founding Fathers] knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose.” (Ronald Reagan, “A Time for Choosing”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY)
Report Post »