Is Obama an "Affirmative Action President?"

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

read the constitution. It tells you specifically what it is for...I know people think that is a lame response but I don't have a better one.
now it seems as though we should simply change our name to the united state of america.
the states are meant to be different...if we allow them to be while respecting the Constitution and the guaranteed rights of all Americans I really don't think we would see the conflict we do.

the constitution has been pissed on since it's inception ... the problems you have at the fed level you also have at the state level ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

article 2 section 2 clause 2

but that is the point of my question ... why is it some things are ok for the feds to handle and why is some things not?

well your question was answered by the constitution. and the point of your question is rather strange. Why does anything happen? why are any rules followed? why? Because that is how they are set up. I find it funny that you question the document and its relevance, and the very question you came up with was specifically dealt with inside the constitution. ...the document that makes those distinctions. They were set up to give people and state and local government the most freedom ever felt under a "government" at the time it was written. I suppose it COULD have been set up any way the states wanted to ratify it...the constitution was ratified and should be the document we go by until the process through which it is changed occurs...It is set up to be changed as times change...but that doesn't mean it should be ignored while people are trying to make the changes. The amendment process could possibly eliminate states rights.

If you start to ask why something is the way it is you can bring that down to the eventual discrediting of everything that occurs in social situation in the entire world. Why does anything happen the way it does? I suppose because it was deemed to be the best way possible to get large numbers of separate states to agree to a common way of doing business in the beginning. and after that it has grown into the behemoth we see today. Constantly looking for reasons to justify its existence...and in the mean time actually being able to convince some that states rights don't matter.


I know that might ramble a bit but I hope you catch my drift. I am getting married this weekend so my mind is strangely scattered

gimmesometruth27

polaris_x wrote:

the constitution has been pissed on since it's inception ... the problems you have at the fed level you also have at the state level ...

exactly. bush and cheney wiped their ass with it...

presidents have given themselves more and more lattitude with regards to the constitution in recent administrations...

in my opinion if the constitution can not limit executive power and abuses then it is a useless rag.

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

read the constitution. It tells you specifically what it is for...I know people think that is a lame response but I don't have a better one.
now it seems as though we should simply change our name to the united state of america.
the states are meant to be different...if we allow them to be while respecting the Constitution and the guaranteed rights of all Americans I really don't think we would see the conflict we do.

the constitution has been pissed on since it's inception ... the problems you have at the fed level you also have at the state level ...

I certainly wouldn't say pissed on just interpreted differently...and there are certainly problems with state governments, but as government gets smaller, the people it affects directly have more say. That is the beauty of our system. If you don't like one state, you are free to move to another, if you don't like one town's ordinances you are free to travel to another...that is why I would love for states rights to be what they are supposed to be...if you don't like the laws in idaho, either work to change them locally, or move to a state that fits your philosophy...I mean, without my mom and the future in-laws in mn I would be living in vermont or new hampshire...sure the fake hippies would drive me nuts(lived with two in college for 3 years and it is the only time I have contemplated murder ), but they seem to be the most libertarian of all places. and those differences between states should be CELEBRATED not denigrated.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

well your question was answered by the constitution. and the point of your question is rather strange. Why does anything happen? why are any rules followed? why? Because that is how they are set up. I find it funny that you question the document and its relevance, and the very question you came up with was specifically dealt with inside the constitution. ...the document that makes those distinctions. They were set up to give people and state and local government the most freedom ever felt under a "government" at the time it was written. I suppose it COULD have been set up any way the states wanted to ratify it...the constitution was ratified and should be the document we go by until the process through which it is changed occurs...It is set up to be changed as times change...but that doesn't mean it should be ignored while people are trying to make the changes. The amendment process could possibly eliminate states rights.

If you start to ask why something is the way it is you can bring that down to the eventual discrediting of everything that occurs in social situation in the entire world. Why does anything happen the way it does? I suppose because it was deemed to be the best way possible to get large numbers of separate states to agree to a common way of doing business in the beginning. and after that it has grown into the behemoth we see today. Constantly looking for reasons to justify its existence...and in the mean time actually being able to convince some that states rights don't matter.


I know that might ramble a bit but I hope you catch my drift. I am getting married this weekend so my mind is strangely scattered

firstly ... congratulations ... i hope you have a wonderful wedding day and that you and your spouse will be able to enjoy it ...

secondly ... i totally understand what you are saying and i'm sorry if my questions seem redundant and trivial ... however, what i am trying to get at is that by simply saying we should follow the constitution is no different than saying we should all do this or that ... it's just not going to happen and ultimately is that the crux of what ails the country and the states? ... i don't think so ... the problems aren't as a result of not following the constitution ... they are the result of the people themselves ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

well your question was answered by the constitution. and the point of your question is rather strange. Why does anything happen? why are any rules followed? why? Because that is how they are set up. I find it funny that you question the document and its relevance, and the very question you came up with was specifically dealt with inside the constitution. ...the document that makes those distinctions. They were set up to give people and state and local government the most freedom ever felt under a "government" at the time it was written. I suppose it COULD have been set up any way the states wanted to ratify it...the constitution was ratified and should be the document we go by until the process through which it is changed occurs...It is set up to be changed as times change...but that doesn't mean it should be ignored while people are trying to make the changes. The amendment process could possibly eliminate states rights.

If you start to ask why something is the way it is you can bring that down to the eventual discrediting of everything that occurs in social situation in the entire world. Why does anything happen the way it does? I suppose because it was deemed to be the best way possible to get large numbers of separate states to agree to a common way of doing business in the beginning. and after that it has grown into the behemoth we see today. Constantly looking for reasons to justify its existence...and in the mean time actually being able to convince some that states rights don't matter.


I know that might ramble a bit but I hope you catch my drift. I am getting married this weekend so my mind is strangely scattered

firstly ... congratulations ... i hope you have a wonderful wedding day and that you and your spouse will be able to enjoy it ...

secondly ... i totally understand what you are saying and i'm sorry if my questions seem redundant and trivial ... however, what i am trying to get at is that by simply saying we should follow the constitution is no different than saying we should all do this or that ... it's just not going to happen and ultimately is that the crux of what ails the country and the states? ... i don't think so ... the problems aren't as a result of not following the constitution ... they are the result of the people themselves ...

I disagree about your assesment of the constitution. i think we would be much happier if the document was followed more closely in regards to the freedom it is supposed to give us. It isn't supposed to be a document that tells the people what they can and cannot do..it is a document that is supposed to tell governments what they can and cannot do...
but you are right about the people...the constant need to control your neighbor is making people look to the constitution for ways to JUSTIFY that behavior...rather than looking to the document to PROTECT us from that behavior...which was its point to begin with...

State's effin rights baby...
maybe 300 years from now in the new super power they will realize that.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

I disagree about your assesment of the constitution. i think we would be much happier if the document was followed more closely in regards to the freedom it is supposed to give us. It isn't supposed to be a document that tells the people what they can and cannot do..it is a document that is supposed to tell governments what they can and cannot do...
but you are right about the people...the constant need to control your neighbor is making people look to the constitution for ways to JUSTIFY that behavior...rather than looking to the document to PROTECT us from that behavior...which was its point to begin with...

State's effin rights baby...
maybe 300 years from now in the new super power they will realize that.

then why hasn't it been followed?

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I disagree about your assesment of the constitution. i think we would be much happier if the document was followed more closely in regards to the freedom it is supposed to give us. It isn't supposed to be a document that tells the people what they can and cannot do..it is a document that is supposed to tell governments what they can and cannot do...
but you are right about the people...the constant need to control your neighbor is making people look to the constitution for ways to JUSTIFY that behavior...rather than looking to the document to PROTECT us from that behavior...which was its point to begin with...

State's effin rights baby...
maybe 300 years from now in the new super power they will realize that.

then why hasn't it been followed?

same as you said...it is the people. The ones who have to control their neighbors no matter where they live

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

same as you said...it is the people. The ones who have to control their neighbors no matter where they live

which, as convoluted as i made it, was my point ... the people and the democracy need to be strengthened ...