Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Ron Paul!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="dutchwrangler" data-source="post: 1618291" data-attributes="member: 4650"><p>The sovereign states did know they were <strong>loaning</strong> to the central government powers that they inherently held (and still do). Just as the individual gives up some power to live in a peaceful society. Only those 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution were the powers that the States granted to the central government to deal with in order to achieve harmonious relations between the States. One only need to read history prior to the adoption of the current Constitution to see how the States were often at odds with one another, in particular trade between each. To ensure the success of the confederation the States realized that some issues were more easily dealt with by a central government which would act as the arbiter of those powers granted to them. Again, the General Welfare clause, like that pertaining to taxation... is only towards the 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that anything "general" is in violation of the mandate of Article 1, Section 8 as loaned by the States. Social Security, Medicaid, etc... all are outside the scope of the enumerated powers. Again... why is it that when these issue come up those in government and those who support these programs constantly strive to circumvent the Constitution with their arguments? It's because they know that the Constitution did not give these powers to the central government. The power to tax was only to carry out the enumerated tasks. And spending was also only to be used to carry out those enumerated tasks. That's how the Founders intended to limit the power of the central government. Again... the ratification debates of the States need to be studied as well as the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers to understand the mindset of those who drafted the Constitution.</p><p></p><p>Government by it's nature does hate Liberty. Name one government currently in existance that is fighting for it on behalf of the individual. Our government definitely is not doing this as prescribed by the Declaration of Independence (the Founding Document). The sole purpose of government as mentioned in the Declaration of Independences is to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing more, nothing less. Anarchy by definition is simple "without ruler". People construe that anarchism equates to violence. But look at marriage. In a social institution where mutual respect between a man and a woman exists... anarchism exists as well. Both are equal and thus there is no need for a ruler. The moment one becomes the ruler, then the other becomes the slave. This doesn't change any when the example is expanded to the entire societal system as a whole. Thus, anarchism can be peaceful provided mutual respect is shown by the involved parties.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dutchwrangler, post: 1618291, member: 4650"] The sovereign states did know they were [B]loaning[/B] to the central government powers that they inherently held (and still do). Just as the individual gives up some power to live in a peaceful society. Only those 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution were the powers that the States granted to the central government to deal with in order to achieve harmonious relations between the States. One only need to read history prior to the adoption of the current Constitution to see how the States were often at odds with one another, in particular trade between each. To ensure the success of the confederation the States realized that some issues were more easily dealt with by a central government which would act as the arbiter of those powers granted to them. Again, the General Welfare clause, like that pertaining to taxation... is only towards the 18 enumerated powers. Beyond that anything "general" is in violation of the mandate of Article 1, Section 8 as loaned by the States. Social Security, Medicaid, etc... all are outside the scope of the enumerated powers. Again... why is it that when these issue come up those in government and those who support these programs constantly strive to circumvent the Constitution with their arguments? It's because they know that the Constitution did not give these powers to the central government. The power to tax was only to carry out the enumerated tasks. And spending was also only to be used to carry out those enumerated tasks. That's how the Founders intended to limit the power of the central government. Again... the ratification debates of the States need to be studied as well as the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers to understand the mindset of those who drafted the Constitution. Government by it's nature does hate Liberty. Name one government currently in existance that is fighting for it on behalf of the individual. Our government definitely is not doing this as prescribed by the Declaration of Independence (the Founding Document). The sole purpose of government as mentioned in the Declaration of Independences is to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Nothing more, nothing less. Anarchy by definition is simple "without ruler". People construe that anarchism equates to violence. But look at marriage. In a social institution where mutual respect between a man and a woman exists... anarchism exists as well. Both are equal and thus there is no need for a ruler. The moment one becomes the ruler, then the other becomes the slave. This doesn't change any when the example is expanded to the entire societal system as a whole. Thus, anarchism can be peaceful provided mutual respect is shown by the involved parties. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Ron Paul!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom