Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

We need a constitutional convention

July 14, 2013

To the editor: As one who is concerned that the federal government has forsaken its constitutional moorings, I have been searching for actions that can be taken to correct the alarming expansion of......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(68)

Auntydem

Jul-14-13 10:29 AM

Listening to Mark Levin again. Well this explains the recent overuse of the word Marxist.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-14-13 12:19 PM

Auntydem: Congratulations. Glad to see you are keeping up with "the Great One." Do you plan to read "The Liberty Amendments" when it comes out next month?

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-14-13 3:43 PM

"Overuse"? Apparently there are now limits on how often one may use a particular word that someone on the Left does not want to hear. It may hurt your ears to hear that class warfare rhetoric is classical Marxist rhetoric, but it remains the truth nonetheless.

5 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-14-13 5:15 PM

But MT, the corporations are already writing the laws, what more do you want? The Republican Party is owned by ALEC and they are run by Corporate America. Cheer up, MT. You have everything you want, and it isn't even Christmas.

Maybe your next letter should be to the Koch Brothers. They are fighting hard, actually they are paying someone else to fight hard to make sure that your money and my money stays their money. You should be so proud...it is everything you believe in.

I wonder how many years it will be until the Supreme Court abolished the 18th amendment. This time, it won't be based on color, but rather on class.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jul-14-13 5:27 PM

MT: Not planning to read Levin's new book. Reading his horrendous definition of anyone not ultra-conservative, which you used to define homosexuals, and the preaching that both plan to destroy civil society pretty much sums up where he’s coming from. Same old, same old.

“The Great One”? It is an appropriate title for a person one worships.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

LJGibbs

Jul-14-13 6:21 PM

Wayne Gretzky wrote the Liberty Amendments? Who knew?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-14-13 7:38 PM

The consensus so far among the commenters is that the federal govt is fine as is, and it's OK if the federal govt continues to take your liberty one piece at a time. America might just be complacent enough for that to keep happening. But there are a few of us out here who cherish our liberty and would like to have it back.

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

oteron

Jul-14-13 8:14 PM

THis guy is such a bozo its comedy.

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-14-13 9:35 PM

Who is the greater fool, the one who tries in vain to warn of impending doom, or the one who laughs at his warnings?

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-14-13 10:46 PM

Ever-increasing control by the central govt over the lives of the people. Loss of national prosperity. Loss of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Norwaymaple

Jul-15-13 12:00 AM

The federal government has taken upon itself the role of a nanny, claiming to do so for the good of all, but really using that as an excuse to control out lives. We no longer have the right to choose the volume of water our toilets can use per flush, how many watts of energy our light bulbs can use, to have sugar in our soft drinks at school, to have toy guns without orange barrel tips, to have fireworks for personal use (state law), to have readily available ethanol-free gasoline, or for that matter corn for food use, we have idiotic labeling warning against using a hair drying in the shower, and a host of other regulations which have nothing to do with the government's role of protecting us from foreign enemies.

8 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Jul-15-13 3:20 AM

Norway... Part of the reason that the government gets involved with these things is because our resources are not infinite.

Water supplies all over the country are suffering. My 1.2GPF toilet works just fine. Energy resources are also strained. The nations infrastructure is failing fast. I don't miss the incandescent lamps at all. Most of my lamps have been replaced with CFL's years ago, or Halogen, which are just as versatile as incandescent, but provide a crisper light. We have replaced about a dozen of our lamps with LEDs and they are working very well. Here's the thing, we have soldiers in every corner of the world ensuring that our oil supplies are safe because just won't conserve energy like they need to unless the government mandates it.

Tell me, just how has any of these energy mandates negatively affected you? I can't imagine what my utility bills would be if my house had its energy saving upgrades reversed.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Jul-15-13 3:23 AM

Do you remember when kids used to get shot by cops because their toy guns looked so real? Is that what you want to go back to? I get what you're saying about essentially protecting the stupid people (and I agree with you on that), but when it comes to children, or our children's natural resources, we need to protect them.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-15-13 8:25 AM

MCW: And where in the Constitution does it say that regulatory agencies like the EPA, which are under the Executive Branch of the federal govt, have the power to make laws?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Legislative Branch has the power to delegate its law-making power to another branch of the federal govt?

And where in the Constitution does it say that the federal govt may enact laws that pertain to areas that are outside its specifically enumerated powers, thus trampling on that which has been reserved to the states and the people?

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-15-13 8:38 AM

The problem is that our Constitution does not establish a federal govt that has power to inject itself into anything and everything in the civil society, as it pleases. The federal govt was established to address a few things that could not easily be addressed on a state level, and ONLY those things. The federal govt's areas of concern are specifically spelled out in the Constitution itself, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments specifically state that everything else is reserved for the state govts and the people.

As the federal govt has expanded its power farther and farther outside its constitution boundaries, most people have gradually come to think that this is the way the federal govt is supposed to operate. But at the same time they sense that something is wrong. They see that Washington is becoming the same tyrant that George III was. That's why you hear people starting to resist: Give me liberty!

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jul-15-13 8:56 AM

Those are the rights of such concern? Here I am concerned about silly rights that Republican states are messing with like limiting voting, forcing unnecessary medical procedures, replacing all elected local officials with one all-powerful person appointed by a governor, taking people's land for fracking, and SCOTUS deciding corporations are people and money is speech. I like clean water, air, and safe food and medicines, a baseline against third world wages, and 6 year olds not working. EPA regulations protect people and their land over corporations. This and financial regulations are big conservative no-no’s, but important to actual people.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-15-13 9:19 AM

The problem, MT, with doing things strictly on the state level is that you then have 50 completely separate sets of laws in every state, which would make traveling and remaining a law abiding citizen much more difficult. Also, you would see states fighting even more than they are. Just look how southern states have already degraded the workplace with cheap, undereducated labor. States in the south are subdidising foreign auto manufacturers with taxpayer money to build factories in their states to directly compete with American auto manufacturers, many of them in northern states. That is something I would like to see the federal government step in on. We should not be using taxpayer dollars for one state to compete with another.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-15-13 9:24 AM

You bring up the EPA. Do you not want clean air and water? Do you REALLY trust backwards states like Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and others like them to do the right thing for our environment, particularly if they need to compete with another state that is lax in environmental laws?

If anything, the EPA should be regulating Chinese imports. If they are produced in a factory that does not meet our standards, then they should reject the goods at our docks. We cannot tell China what to do, but we can tell them what we will allow our companies to buy. Imagine how many American jobs that alone would bring back.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mnsotn

Jul-15-13 9:27 AM

Well said Auntydem! Labor laws are a very important job of the Federal Government. Remember, some states would still have slavery if not for Federal laws. But, I suspect many of the registered Republicans here would be okay with that.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Norwaymaple

Jul-15-13 9:59 AM

MCW, if you are concerned about dwindling water supplies, then ethanol production, mandated and supported by the government, should bother you. It uses incredible volumes of water for a dubious benefit of reducing dependence on foreign oil.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-15-13 10:06 AM

What comes through very clearly in the last few comments is that you all don't like our Constitution very much. You don't want the federal govt to be limited to its role as defined in the Constitution. You view the states as being totally incapable of taking meaningful action for the welfare of their respective citizens, and totally incapable of coordinating action among themselves where necessary. If it weren't for the huge, all-powerful central govt, there would be total chaos and the whole country would be sunk into squalor.

If you will, perhaps one of you might explain to me the difference in philosophy between yourselves and the old Soviet Union. They also believed in a large, all-powerful central govt that planned and controlled everything. They, too, were a society built on the idea that Karl Marx had it right.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jul-15-13 11:25 AM

MT: At least it took a bit longer for Marx to show up and you to explain what everyone else thinks. Disagreeing with decisions made by state legislators or courts or conservatives or Republicans does not indicate dislike of the Constitution, nor agreement with Marx. Not having your omniscience I can’t speak for others, but I expect government to protect me from being cheated or exploited by those with the money and power to do so, not just from foreign enemies in times of war. Fling Marxist at that if you will, but who's actually trying to change the Constitution when the ballot box or the person in the WH disappoints them? I know those in government are never perfect. That is why the Constitution exists. If I to can play God for a moment, you believe states and unregulated private entities are incapable of decisions or actions that harm citizens – they are perfect and benign, if not downright paternal - and money is the measure of a person’s morality and human worth.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-15-13 11:37 AM

AD: Your comments sidestep the issue. You want "government" to do certain things. No one is saying that government on some level should not do those things. My point is that under our Constitution it is not the role of the FEDERAL government to do all of those things. Our Constitution prescribes a very limited role to the federal government. You would like to take governmental functions that the Constitution reserves for the state and give them to an all-powerful central government.

You do not care for being compared to Marx, but the connection between your anti-capitalist big-government philosopher and Marx is undeniable.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Jul-15-13 11:38 AM

"philosophy", not "philosopher"

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Auntydem

Jul-15-13 11:54 AM

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group.” FDR

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 68 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web