Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gov healthcare
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 574249" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p><span style="color: blue">I'll get to the falsely accused part latter but let's address the common defense part of this equation. The US Constitution also lists a "general welfare" clause along with a "common defense" clause in Article 1, Sec. 8. It reads:</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: red"><span style="color: blue">So in giving the power to Congress to lay and collect taxes, it's also suppose to provide for the common defense and</span> </span><span style="color: blue">general welfare but since both terms have origin in the Articles of Confederation, let's refer there. Now if you read Art. 4 of the Articles of Confederation, what is described at least IMHO sure does sound a lot like what someone would do if they wanted to promote general welfare among a group of people without intervening into their personal lives and making choices that benefit one person over another. Granted Indians and African Slaves got a totally, morally raw deal but we're looking at intent here and it was for a bunch of white guys. Now IMO there's the beginning of the means to defending your "correct" understanding of the General Welfare clause but what about common defense?</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Look, I'm gonna warn ya again, you probably won't like this but as the old saying goes, <strong>it is what it is</strong>. I'm really starting to like that little ditty!<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Go back to the <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">Articles of Confederation</span> </a>again and this time look down at Article 6. I'll quote it.</span></p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <span style="color: red">(I just quoted part but read and consider it all)</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">My understanding here on this is that first, a state has to be invaded but then there's an "or shall" and it speaks of having "received certain advice of a resolution being formed" in this case by the Indian Nations. From my reading, this means if a State having be informed by an Indian Nation through some means of Declaration of War of intent to invade, the States have the right to defend themselves and repell such until as such time as Congress can be consulted and act accordingly and then bring other State militias into play to join the "common defense." Back in them days, representatives spent most of their time at home, not doing face time on C-Span or on Corp. junkits and there were no phones, faxes or internet so to assemble Congress took a bit. They granted an individual State to act accordingly to repell an attack but they couldn't claim the Indians had WMD and launch a full scale offensive invasion either although that did come later which just proves they didn't take what they were saying anymore serious than the clowns we have today.<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue">IMHO you can read this frontwards, backwards, slideways, what have you but the fact is 2 fold, the primary being of military power resided in the States themselves with the State militia under State control made up of able bodied persons, armed accordingly and that those milita's could not be called out unless the State(s) were "ATTACKED". Not that you think they are gonna be attacked because some Washington <span style="font-size: 9px">s</span><span style="font-size: 10px">think tank twisting false data saying you are gonna be attacked but that an actual attack has taken place. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: blue"><span style="font-size: 10px">Setting aside 9/11 for the moment, one positive of this approach is that if the law required you to take the first punch before you could punch back, it would be in your best interest to not "get yourself into foreign entanglements" or go out and stick your nose into things that might provoke someone to lash out. Art. 6 was all about creating the idea of mutualism if you will in that peace through honest trade, economics (free market for everyone including the foreigner you traded with), commerce and just plain western judeo-christian values of not stealing, not murdering, not lying and not coveting would hopefully sway the day of how we acted as a nation. Understanding their property as persons and independent nations are not for the benefit and pleasure of multi-national corporations by hook or crook to do as the like but that the rule of honest law would be observed even more so by our nation and citizens in order to be that beacon on a hill to others. If others didn't want to trade that way, then we wouldn't and to those Americans who choose to do so, Buyer Beware!</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">To insure the means of this and the idea of miltia, in the US Constitution we have the 2nd amendment along with lots of other Art. of Confederation language that IMO are much rooted in the origin concepts. Now if you contend however that it was the intent to have a Federal level maintained army at the beck and call of the President at any moment to go forth as he sees fit, then IMO you just negated the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment and give to the so-called anti-gunner the very arguement as to way the 2nd amendment in meaningless and useless in this day and time. The purpose of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with shooting targets or killing bambie, it was all about shooting despots, tyrants and violators of natural (unalienable) rights. If you open the door to abusing the original intent of the common defense, then the open the door for other abuse as well including the general welfare clause and the even worse offender IMO, the commerce clause. The despotism of that one is unreal IMO. Expansion of police and military powers to the </span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">State negates the need for the 2nd amendment as it pertains to it's original purpose. To de-volve the state means to strenghten all the unalienable rights we do have IMO.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">As to 9/11, Up til about 5 years ago, it was a no brainer for me and Afghanistan was justified and in that intial outset of the allegations against Saddam I was willing to forgot Vietnam in the hopes that maybe this was different but facts quickly eroded that belief. The lies IMO are even worse than Gulf of Tonkin and I do believe just as the Johnson adminstration was criminally wrong, so was the Bush adminstration even more so. I'd not leave Clinton out here either but Bush took it full tilt. I also believe Obama and company are knowingly following the Bush <a href="http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/51502,news,obama-faces-mutiny-led-by-clinton-and-biden-us-foreign-policy-israel-hawk-bush" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">Comstruct</span></a> and therefore bringing the same upon themselves in the end.</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">I don't expect any change here other than we'll just agree to disagree. I would suggest you do 2 things, take it or leave it, it's up to you. First off, take a deeper look at the whole Caspian Sea basin as it relates to energy, what it means to control that energy and what areas are going to be important when it comes to getting that energy out. Also consider all of the 20th century in relation to energy and how it has effected our govt's policy. The other suggestion will take about 3 hours and it doesn't have to be in one stretch but consider going to Google video and watching the 3 part BBC program entitled "The Power of Nightmares".</span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Do I believe you are supporting the expansion of gov't? Yes in the very same way I did up until a few short years ago. Been there, done that, got a draw full of T-Shirts. Bill Clinton tired to argue that a blowjob in not sex. I stopped making the same rediculous arguement when it comes to gov't!</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff">Win, lose or draw, I think we agree on more than we disgree but I want to pull back gov't on both domestic and foreign fronts and I don't see how you can get one without doing the other. JMO and given in all respect!</span></p><p></p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/peaceful.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":peaceful:" title="Peaceful :peaceful:" data-shortname=":peaceful:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 574249, member: 2189"] [COLOR=blue]I'll get to the falsely accused part latter but let's address the common defense part of this equation. The US Constitution also lists a "general welfare" clause along with a "common defense" clause in Article 1, Sec. 8. It reads:[/COLOR] [COLOR=red][COLOR=blue]So in giving the power to Congress to lay and collect taxes, it's also suppose to provide for the common defense and[/COLOR] [/COLOR][COLOR=blue]general welfare but since both terms have origin in the Articles of Confederation, let's refer there. Now if you read Art. 4 of the Articles of Confederation, what is described at least IMHO sure does sound a lot like what someone would do if they wanted to promote general welfare among a group of people without intervening into their personal lives and making choices that benefit one person over another. Granted Indians and African Slaves got a totally, morally raw deal but we're looking at intent here and it was for a bunch of white guys. Now IMO there's the beginning of the means to defending your "correct" understanding of the General Welfare clause but what about common defense?[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Look, I'm gonna warn ya again, you probably won't like this but as the old saying goes, [B]it is what it is[/B]. I'm really starting to like that little ditty!:wink2:[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Go back to the [URL="http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html"][COLOR=red]Articles of Confederation[/COLOR] [/URL]again and this time look down at Article 6. I'll quote it.[/COLOR] [COLOR=red](I just quoted part but read and consider it all)[/COLOR] [COLOR=blue]My understanding here on this is that first, a state has to be invaded but then there's an "or shall" and it speaks of having "received certain advice of a resolution being formed" in this case by the Indian Nations. From my reading, this means if a State having be informed by an Indian Nation through some means of Declaration of War of intent to invade, the States have the right to defend themselves and repell such until as such time as Congress can be consulted and act accordingly and then bring other State militias into play to join the "common defense." Back in them days, representatives spent most of their time at home, not doing face time on C-Span or on Corp. junkits and there were no phones, faxes or internet so to assemble Congress took a bit. They granted an individual State to act accordingly to repell an attack but they couldn't claim the Indians had WMD and launch a full scale offensive invasion either although that did come later which just proves they didn't take what they were saying anymore serious than the clowns we have today.:happy-very:[/COLOR] [COLOR=blue]IMHO you can read this frontwards, backwards, slideways, what have you but the fact is 2 fold, the primary being of military power resided in the States themselves with the State militia under State control made up of able bodied persons, armed accordingly and that those milita's could not be called out unless the State(s) were "ATTACKED". Not that you think they are gonna be attacked because some Washington [SIZE=1]s[/SIZE][SIZE=2]think tank twisting false data saying you are gonna be attacked but that an actual attack has taken place. [/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=blue][SIZE=2]Setting aside 9/11 for the moment, one positive of this approach is that if the law required you to take the first punch before you could punch back, it would be in your best interest to not "get yourself into foreign entanglements" or go out and stick your nose into things that might provoke someone to lash out. Art. 6 was all about creating the idea of mutualism if you will in that peace through honest trade, economics (free market for everyone including the foreigner you traded with), commerce and just plain western judeo-christian values of not stealing, not murdering, not lying and not coveting would hopefully sway the day of how we acted as a nation. Understanding their property as persons and independent nations are not for the benefit and pleasure of multi-national corporations by hook or crook to do as the like but that the rule of honest law would be observed even more so by our nation and citizens in order to be that beacon on a hill to others. If others didn't want to trade that way, then we wouldn't and to those Americans who choose to do so, Buyer Beware![/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]To insure the means of this and the idea of miltia, in the US Constitution we have the 2nd amendment along with lots of other Art. of Confederation language that IMO are much rooted in the origin concepts. Now if you contend however that it was the intent to have a Federal level maintained army at the beck and call of the President at any moment to go forth as he sees fit, then IMO you just negated the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment and give to the so-called anti-gunner the very arguement as to way the 2nd amendment in meaningless and useless in this day and time. The purpose of the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with shooting targets or killing bambie, it was all about shooting despots, tyrants and violators of natural (unalienable) rights. If you open the door to abusing the original intent of the common defense, then the open the door for other abuse as well including the general welfare clause and the even worse offender IMO, the commerce clause. The despotism of that one is unreal IMO. Expansion of police and military powers to the [/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]State negates the need for the 2nd amendment as it pertains to it's original purpose. To de-volve the state means to strenghten all the unalienable rights we do have IMO.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]As to 9/11, Up til about 5 years ago, it was a no brainer for me and Afghanistan was justified and in that intial outset of the allegations against Saddam I was willing to forgot Vietnam in the hopes that maybe this was different but facts quickly eroded that belief. The lies IMO are even worse than Gulf of Tonkin and I do believe just as the Johnson adminstration was criminally wrong, so was the Bush adminstration even more so. I'd not leave Clinton out here either but Bush took it full tilt. I also believe Obama and company are knowingly following the Bush [URL="http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/51502,news,obama-faces-mutiny-led-by-clinton-and-biden-us-foreign-policy-israel-hawk-bush"][COLOR=red]Comstruct[/COLOR][/URL] and therefore bringing the same upon themselves in the end.[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]I don't expect any change here other than we'll just agree to disagree. I would suggest you do 2 things, take it or leave it, it's up to you. First off, take a deeper look at the whole Caspian Sea basin as it relates to energy, what it means to control that energy and what areas are going to be important when it comes to getting that energy out. Also consider all of the 20th century in relation to energy and how it has effected our govt's policy. The other suggestion will take about 3 hours and it doesn't have to be in one stretch but consider going to Google video and watching the 3 part BBC program entitled "The Power of Nightmares".[/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Do I believe you are supporting the expansion of gov't? Yes in the very same way I did up until a few short years ago. Been there, done that, got a draw full of T-Shirts. Bill Clinton tired to argue that a blowjob in not sex. I stopped making the same rediculous arguement when it comes to gov't![/COLOR] [COLOR=#0000ff]Win, lose or draw, I think we agree on more than we disgree but I want to pull back gov't on both domestic and foreign fronts and I don't see how you can get one without doing the other. JMO and given in all respect![/COLOR] :peaceful: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gov healthcare
Top