The author's premise: "The Constitution was never intended to 'provide limited government,' and furthermore it did not do so."
See if you can find any "holes" in this guy's argument:
Yes. This will be on the test.
Saturday, August 03, 2013
Proposition: Concept of "Limited Government" Is Right-Wing Bunk
Yes. This will be on the test
"Chewy"and intriguing political perspective from political commentary "up and comer" Jada Thacker. This is for "thinkers" only... and NOT for sappy ideologues.
The author's premise: "The Constitution was never intended to 'provide limited government,' and furthermore it did not do so."
See if you can find any "holes" in this guy's argument:
Yes. This will be on the test.
The author's premise: "The Constitution was never intended to 'provide limited government,' and furthermore it did not do so."
See if you can find any "holes" in this guy's argument:
Yes. This will be on the test.
© 2005 - 2014 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved
18 comments:
Right off the bat. I'll note that most US constitutional rights are not labeled as "rights" in the US Constitution, even though they are.
Just wait until the many self described Constitutional law eperts reply to this thread. It must be a tough way to earn a living since so many constitutional experts are reduced to posting their opinions on the internet for free.
Okay I read it. Nothing but a massive strawman. Firstly, nobody with a brain claims the constitution ensures limited government. We have been interpreting this document for centuries and found our current laws in line with it (via court).
The flip side of the argument is equally true. The country started with a much smaller government and was also constitutionally correct. So by the same token, nothing in the constitution demands huge government either.
The author completely misses the whole point. Simply because something can be done doesn't mean it should be. Yes we can and do have a bigger government, but that doesn't mean its a great idea. The argument is for smaller government. And the country was in fact founded with smaller government.
Now I'm sure you have those right wingers who claim the current system is in violation of the constitution, maybe the same people who think the nation was founded on Christianity. He's attacking the arguments of fringe idiots as some kind of strawman to defend bigger government. Weak.
"Nothing but a massive strawman." Nonsense, John. There are a couple of flaws in Thacker's otherwise top-notch treatise,
but I don't believe you really identified any one of them. Next?
There's
no need to attack his points because they are correct from what I could
tell. They just are irrelevant. The constitution no more restricts
government size than it requires it.
I guess if this whole article is to say the current government is constitutionally fine then. Okay. lol. Doesn't make it good.
Ahem.
The very basis of LARGE federal government came from the Constitution,
after it supplanted the Articles of Confederacy, don'tcha think?
That's Thacken's argument anyway, in it's essence.
The
constitution is very vague in many areas. He specifically spells out
how its language does allow for larger government. Which is fine. He
makes the case that larger government is not anti-constitution, but he
does not make the case that it demands larger government.
The
most interesting part to me was in regard to rights vs power. A little
thin on individual rights. More than most people probably think.
"The
constitution no more calls for large government than it does for
small." True. Not in so many words, anyway. But after our "founders"
abandoned the "Articles of Confederacy" and enacted the "Constitution,"
doubtless the founders in calling for strong 'centralized" government,
wittingly set the stage for 'larger" centralized government, no?
^^ Possibly. Well, considering its been growing all this time quite
probably. Although that seems to conflict with many of their personal
writings. Maybe that was just an illuminati trick to send us off the
scent.
"Rights vs power" Bingo, John. That's the first defect in Thacker's analysis.
"...seems
to conflict with many of their personal writings." That's one of the
biggest problems with America's out of touch "right wingers," John.
They confuse the pre-revolution rhetoric with the much more moderate
compromises which were enacted into the constitution and the laws formed
in our new nation after we defeated the British.
That's true, although at times some of those writings (pre and post constitution) are all we have to try and make sense of some of the more vague areas. Hard to separate the rhetoric from the true intentions.
Remember, John, the firebrand Thomas Paine, who composed much of the pamphlet literature and inflammatory rhetoric which ignited the American revolution, was entirely closed off from post-revolution negotiations, and actually died in poverty, years after the American revolution, having never actually participated in the formation of the new American government.
As if the gov really cares anyway. Hell look at all the intervention and covert crap they do in the markets and letting banksters do what they want...might as well wioe our buys with it from that standpoint.
I think there is a larger point here.
Note the strenuous pitch present in this author's claim that the Constitution does not call for limited government. He seems to be attacking libertarians more than describing his own positions. Other commentaries he writes are the same.
It may be that libertarian thought is finally reaching the mainstream. This guy sounds frightened. Good.
It's about time. The more I hear people attacking libertarian views, the more I know they fear that it is slowly winning.
Think you are spot on there Danny... I personally moved from the mainstay right sheeple after the TARP vote to that principle...endless letters to that moron Hatch and the rest if the idiots in Washingto that went unanswered in any kind of meaningful way.
The founding fathers included postal service, which by extension might mean that, were they writing a constitution for a modern democratic republic with 400 million citizens, they would include in the written constitution such things as internet infrastructure, food safety, and other items necessary to the republic.
Post a Comment