Breaches of the Constitution.

[Chubigans]

I've lately read a lot about the Constitution, and the way it was intended to be interpreted by the founding fathers. I've also heard a lot about the constitution being "broken" by several politicians.

The only example I can think of as unconstitutional action would be the president declaring war without congress.

When libertarians say that modern america is not living up to the constitution, do they mean that we are actually breaching the constitution or are we ignoring the advice of those who created it (the founding fathers?) Because if we are ignoring the advice of the founding fathers, it's not the constitution we're arguing about, it's following the advice of our ancestors (which I posit is a good idea nonetheless.)

I understand the founding fathers' attitudes toward foreign affairs and religious education were a lot different than today. But is there anything written into the constitution that says, in other words, "Do not meddle in the affairs of foreign countries"? I know opinions such as this were common with the founding fathers. But I can't find any of it written into the constitution.

Can anybody offer me examples of where we have ignored the constitution to the letter?

[Vargus]

The only example I can think of as unconstitutional action would be the president declaring war without congress.

It's not really a "war", and that's how Bush got around it for the Gulf War 2.0 and how they got around it in Korea and Vietnam. I don't like it, but I am going to have to give him a pass since the Constitution does say he is the supreme commander of the armed forces.

I wouldn't know how you could make an amendment to say that the President has ultimate discretion while maintaining that Congress has the sole ability to declare war.

When libertarians say that modern america is not living up to the constitution, do they mean that we are actually breaching the constitution or are we ignoring the advice of those who created it (the founding fathers?) Because if we are ignoring the advice of the founding fathers, it's not the constitution we're arguing about, it's following the advice of our ancestors (which I posit is a good idea nonetheless.)


Libertarians would say both, since they take into account the founding father's intentions as well as the letter of the Constitution. The argument at large is whether we should debate about what is relatively clear and concise (the Constitution's 'letter of the law' itself) and what is very much ambiguous (the intents of people who lived about 200 years ago who wrote the Constitution). The debate also hinges on who is actually doing the arguing, and we all know how stupid a lot of our respective members of Congress can be.

[The Better Version]

I would have to agree with Vargus on this one and I don't think you will find any technical breach in the constitution because they never explicitly go against the actual words in the constitution. I think what a lot of people don't realize is that our founding fathers crafted the constitution with great ambiguity and brevity because they wanted people to interpret the constitution in a multitude of ways as to evolve with the times. For instance:

The elastic clause basically says that congress has the power to make any necessary and proper laws to carry out any of it's enumerated powers. Now 200 years ago they would have never dreamed that would be an argument used by Congress to require federal policy on private industries. Today this clause along with the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce are used all the time to justify this.

Now before you libertarians go crazy about this understand that if it wasn't for the fact that our constitution was so flexible we would have never been able to have child labor laws or even a minimum wage to keep up with rising inflation. In fact if our constitution wasn't open for interpretation we would have had to have multiple constitutional conventions just to come up with a new document that could work for the changing times.

They wanted people to have multiple interpretations so there could be multiple right answers instead of just one right answer. Using the example above once more, we could have interpreted those laws in a different manner and decide to side with federalism more so then with a national government but at the time it was better to go with the Congressional interpretation because working conditions were terrible. Of course, one day, arguably today, we could have too much federal power and come to realize that too much regulation is being placed on private companies. Because the constitution has multiple interpretations, we can now revert back to the previous interpretation 200 years ago. Or we could go with a completely new interpretation to complement the current times.

They devised a brilliant system that could actually evolve in a multitude of ways depending on the current society and the circumstances surrounding it. So to answer your question, I don't think we necessarily breached the constitution but rather gave it a new interpretation that essentially benefits certain people for better or for worse.

[Thought Riot]

It's not really a "war", and that's how Bush got around it for the Gulf War 2.0 and how they got around it in Korea and Vietnam. I don't like it, but I am going to have to give him a pass since the Constitution does say he is the supreme commander of the armed forces.

Let's not forget Haiti, Kosovo, Greneda, Panama, Nicaragua, and a some other Latin American countries who were getting uppity.

The federal government is forever expanding it's power under the elastic and interstate commerce clauses. That's how we get things like federal, and not state, drug laws. Because of the somewhat flimsy arguement that what goes on within one states borders will effect the others. While this is true, it is true of everything. I'd make the arguement that the only thing that the federal government has power, in regards to the commerce clause, is the actual exchange of goods and services over state lines. Not the consequences or possible effects.

The federal government also uses the threat of slashed funding to threaten states. Like the drinking age and highway funding. And that Texan (I think) town that tried to have a dialogue on the War on Drugs.

[TruthWielder]

It all boils down to a lack of fundamental understanding concering what is the purpose of our government and why we give it power over us. Were it not for the destructive flaws of man there would be no government at all. The founders understood that the very existence of government necessitated the peoples acquiesence to the curbing of their rights in the name of order to thud ensure their most essential rights ("Life Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"). The duties of government are enumerated by the U.S. constitution as follows:

"...to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..."

The Declaration of Independence declares that the rights of the people in relation to our federal government are:

"(such that)We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This being the case, the unified wisdom of the founders, if nothing else, pointed out that the most important thing for a people under a government to keep was their liberty, while at the same time the very existence of government was an ever present threat to it. Thus, it is the thing for which we must forever be on guard for, as incursions against it have been proven (and indicated by our founders) to be inevitable. Frankly, the only amendment that I have known in the history of the United States to not be heavily infringed upon is the third (and least relevant) amendment. Its a sad case to be an American nowadays.

Thus...that is why the media is in the hands of a few. That is why the ignorance of the people is so dangerous. That is why there is more brainwashing and indoctrination rather than true education these days. Liberty does not help the few, the powerful. That is why we've been made to think that corporations and free enterprise is a bad thing. And frankly, since 1913 Liberty in America has seen a hard and easily traceable decline.

Rant rant. Go Ron Paul. Rant rant.

Sigh...

[Chubigans]

Wow, I just want to thank you guys for the amazing responses. You have some very interesting thoughts on the matter. I'll take these into account. Would you mind sharing with me what reading you have gone through to make these conclusions?

If the federal government is constantly growing in power, what is the end result? If the media and federal government are trying to win the consent of the governed with false propaganda and false dichotomies, what is the reasoning? I don't understand how anyone could believe this is good for the nation as a whole. Then what are they trying to accomplish? Wreck America from the inside?

[Captain Politik]

Buddy you have to relize this war isnt about freeing the iraqi people ITS ABOUT OIL

America doesnt just go to war for stupid shit like freeing a country! look at the track record. EVERY SINGLE WAR or military involvement ( except maybe vietnam but that was to stop spread of communism) had a economical reason behind it.

Now your probably thinking "if this is true why the fuck are we still in the war/why hasnt the media or riots broken out" Well as stupid as americans are I do hope they relize that without oil there is no america.
Not only will we have HUGE control over Iraq, we will have a huge military presence to any oil rich country that thinks they can fuck with our supply

[postdiluvium]

I believe the founding fathers didn't intentionally write the Constitution in ambiguity because they knew times would change. I know at least one of them had even said that it should be rewritten as times change. People idolize the founding fathers way too much. They were businessmen and landowners that wanted the monarchy to stop dipping into their respective stashes.

[puzld]

Sobriety checkpoints are clearly unconstitutional. When you corral every single driver into a checkpoint (which is a search) without having probable cause for each driver, this is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

[puzld]

It's not really a "war", and that's how Bush got around it for the Gulf War 2.0 and how they got around it in Korea and Vietnam.

But both Bush and Obama call the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So they're not wars? :confused:

I wouldn't know how you could make an amendment to say that the President has ultimate discretion while maintaining that Congress has the sole ability to declare war.

Why should the President have ultimate discretion (or the last say so to speak); all three branches of government are supposed to be equal in power.

[The Better Version]

Wow, I just want to thank you guys for the amazing responses. You have some very interesting thoughts on the matter. I'll take these into account. Would you mind sharing with me what reading you have gone through to make these conclusions?

If the federal government is constantly growing in power, what is the end result? If the media and federal government are trying to win the consent of the governed with false propaganda and false dichotomies, what is the reasoning? I don't understand how anyone could believe this is good for the nation as a whole. Then what are they trying to accomplish? Wreck America from the inside?

I recommend starting with Robert Dahl's book: "How Democratic Is the American Constitution. I would also recommend reading the Federalist papers and probably Economic Interests and the Adoption of the United States Constitution by Robert McGuire.

Anyway I don't think anyone truly knows what's up but my theory is, that all super powers are attempting to merge at some point in the distant future to form a one world government. This is why we are significantly engaged in so many conflicts around the World and is the reason why we must abide by international law. I think the super powers finally realized that nothing will be accomplished if they butt heads all the time. This is why we are working with China instead of going to war with them. Back in the old days this could have sparked a World War but today you are seeing more cooperation. Anyway ponder on this thought because I think you will begin to realize how consistent and connected everything is. Think about it....NAFTA, NAU, EU, NATO, etc. If we don't cooperate we will all die within 200 years because a lot must be accomplished if man is to survive. If we don't get off this planet before that time comes, we will probably all die off from nuclear war due to fighting for sustainable land around the equator. These threats are so cataclysmic that it is no longer a single nations problem but everyones problem. Now on to the other responses....

Sobriety check points, though incredibly lame, are not unconstitutional because that's a power reserved to the states. It can't be a violation of the 4th amendment unless they do an unreasonable search and seizure which a check point is not a search. If you've ever been through one, they stop you ask you where you are heading and then ask for your ID. Of course in the process of this, they are using their senses to detect whether or not you are drunk. If they smell alcohol and notice you're slurring then it's reasonable suspicion at which point they would probably ask you to step out of the car and ask you to perform a breathalizer. If a cop just flat out searches you without any probable cause then it's illegal and I'm sure this has happened but I doubt it's often because every cop is required to know the law as to cover their own ass from a lawsuit.

And in regards to Obama and Bush calling it a war....

The fact of the matter is that it's bullshit and they are wars, though small ones. But regardless of whether it is a war or a conflict, they still received congressional approval with the adoption of the Authorization of Use of Military Force and the Detainee Treatment Act all created by Congress.

[Vargus]

Well as stupid as americans are I do hope they relize that without oil there is no america.

Without oil, there is no 21-century world. Of course, the problem extends far, far beyond just oil. Too many mouths to feed and not enough oil to go around, meanwhile those in power are too busy stuffing their pockets instead of trying to get off oil and on to some alternative fuel technology even more lucrative.

Just biding my time until we can get enough people with torches, pitchforks, and rifles to kill them all.

But both Bush and Obama call the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan wars. So they're not wars?

Congress is the only branch that can declare war. Congress has not declared war since WW2.

Why should the President have ultimate discretion (or the last say so to speak); all three branches of government are supposed to be equal in power.

Because the military needs to listen to one supreme commander. Do you really want military decisions to be decided between Congress and the Supreme Court in real time? It is an unfortunate case that is unavoidable. However, I will say that the Executive must be held accountable to every action after the fact.

[Azure]

Let's not forget Haiti, Kosovo, Greneda, Panama, Nicaragua, and a some other Latin American countries who were getting uppity

Protip: UN missions aren't in any way forms of war.

[The Better Version]

Because the military needs to listen to one supreme commander. Do you really want military decisions to be decided between Congress and the Supreme Court in real time? It is an unfortunate case that is unavoidable. However, I will say that the Executive must be held accountable to every action after the fact.

I totally 100 percent agree with you on that one right there.

[puzld]

Because the military needs to listen to one supreme commander. Do you really want military decisions to be decided between Congress and the Supreme Court in real time? It is an unfortunate case that is unavoidable. However, I will say that the Executive must be held accountable to every action after the fact.

No, but i'm not talking about all military decisions. Obviously there are cases where our government has to act very quickly to a threat, and the President should be able to send a SEAL team here or there, or authorize a cruise missile strike, etc. without going to the Congress. But the Iraq war is a war. The Vietnam War was a war. Apparently the power to declare war has been usurped by the Executive branch.

[Struwwelpeter]

Everybody who posted in this thread should be killed.

[Vargus]

No, but i'm not talking about all military decisions. Obviously there are cases where our government has to act very quickly to a threat, and the President should be able to send a SEAL team here or there, or authorize a cruise missile strike, etc. without going to the Congress. But the Iraq war is a war. The Vietnam War was a war. Apparently the power to declare war has been usurped by the Executive branch.

Those are valid points, but I would suggest making an amendment where the Executive retains right to discretion and the Legislative can declare war. I don't think it can happen even in the theoretical sense.

This is why I advocate war crimes hearings for all responsible members of the armed forces, from top to bottom, that have not only disregarded international laws that this country has signed on to, but also federal laws.

In this manner those who commit crimes are held responsible, but the military at large retains high flexibility when necessary. I think this is most necessary when the Executive declares war, as opposed to the Legislative branch.

[Thought Riot]

Protip: UN missions aren't in any way forms of war.

so, when it involves armed people fighting other armed people, what euphemism do you like to use?

I'm assuming that you're refering to the Kosovo thing. It really doesn't matter. A lot of people, myself included, don't believe that the President should be able to deploy troops into other countries as he sees fit.

[The Better Version]

Everybody who posted in this thread should be killed.

Man....GTFO of America! Seriously, your ignorance is hurting us.

[TruthWielder]

Everybody who posted in this thread should be killed.

Come and try. Reprehensible fuck.

[Struwwelpeter]

TruthWielder I'd sell you to the guys at www.pigtailsroundasses.com.

[drBOX]

I've lately read a lot about the Constitution, and the way it was intended to be interpreted by the founding fathers. I've also heard a lot about the constitution being "broken" by several politicians.

The only example I can think of as unconstitutional action would be the president declaring war without congress.

It really doesn't matter if certain politicians think of the constitution as broke. The fact of the matter is that when they are sworn into office, they take an oath to preserve and protect the constitution.

There are MANY more examples of the United States government taking actions that are in no way constitutional.

When libertarians say that modern america is not living up to the constitution, do they mean that we are actually breaching the constitution or are we ignoring the advice of those who created it (the founding fathers?) Because if we are ignoring the advice of the founding fathers, it's not the constitution we're arguing about, it's following the advice of our ancestors (which I posit is a good idea nonetheless.)

I can't speak for all Libertarians, but I would believe them to mean that (not we - although we allow it) but our government is breaching the Constitution. The constitution is spelled out pretty clearly. Sometimes people will say that we simply do not know what the founding fathers meant when they wrote certain parts which have been interpreted in different ways. The fact of the matter is: anyone can pick up a copy of the federalist and anti-federalist papers and get a damn near clear picture of how all aspects of the constitution were intended.

It has nothing to do with 'advice' of the founding fathers. It has to do with an interpretation which is quite clear and unbending.

I would have to agree with Vargus on this one and I don't think you will find any technical breach in the constitution because they never explicitly go against the actual words in the constitution. I think what a lot of people don't realize is that our founding fathers crafted the constitution with great ambiguity and brevity because they wanted people to interpret the constitution in a multitude of ways as to evolve with the times.

I disagree 100%

The elastic clause basically says that congress has the power to make any necessary and proper laws to carry out any of it's enumerated powers. Now 200 years ago they would have never dreamed that would be an argument used by Congress to require federal policy on private industries. Today this clause along with the enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce are used all the time to justify this.

This is a clear example of the changing interpretation. In the original sense, the elastic clause allowed congress to make laws to carry out their enumerated powers in the constitution. But if we actually examine the enumerated powers, they are relatively few.

Now before you libertarians go crazy about this understand that if it wasn't for the fact that our constitution was so flexible we would have never been able to have child labor laws or even a minimum wage to keep up with rising inflation. In fact if our constitution wasn't open for interpretation we would have had to have multiple constitutional conventions just to come up with a new document that could work for the changing times.

Lawl. This is bad news. A flexible interpretation of the constitution is exactly what the founding fathers sought to eliminate. You say that without a flexible interpretation of the constitution we wouldn't even have a minimum wage to keep up with inflation? Well you know, if the government actually followed the constitution WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT INFLATION. (congress coining and regulating the value of money). We wouldn't have to worry about the 90 something percent decline in the purchasing power of the dollar.

How have the times changed in so much that the constitution is an obsolete document? Exactly where and in what way? The fact of the matter is that that is a b.s. argument. Anyone arguing for an ambiguous interpretation is probably seeking something that is not in the best interest of the individuals in this country (bigger government, infringement of rights) etc.

They wanted people to have multiple interpretations so there could be multiple right answers instead of just one right answer. Using the example above once more, we could have interpreted those laws in a different manner and decide to side with federalism more so then with a national government but at the time it was better to go with the Congressional interpretation because working conditions were terrible. Of course, one day, arguably today, we could have too much federal power and come to realize that too much regulation is being placed on private companies. Because the constitution has multiple interpretations, we can now revert back to the previous interpretation 200 years ago. Or we could go with a completely new interpretation to complement the current times.

Multiple interpretations for multiple right answers, instead of just one right answer? That is the most warped out thinking I've heard in a while.

I agree there is too much federal power and we've come to realize that too much regulation is being placed on private companies (as well as families and individuals). But can't you see? There are not multiple interpretations. It is because we have allowed the government to usurp more authority than what the constitution spells out that it has gotten so large and out of control.

No, we can not revert to the previous interpretation 200 years ago. Not without a revolution of some kind. If you know ANYTHING about government it's that it generally gets bigger instead of smaller. The politicians are too busy selling out, the program of the government too vast, to realistically be able to revert back towards anything like the government of this country 200 years ago.

Furthermore, if you know anything about how incredible a feat the declaration of independence, war for independence, and constitution were, you would understand that any new interpretation (or as it is continually being reinterpreted) only serves to progress further and further away from what the founders intended.

They devised a brilliant system that could actually evolve in a multitude of ways depending on the current society and the circumstances surrounding it. So to answer your question, I don't think we necessarily breached the constitution but rather gave it a new interpretation that essentially benefits certain people for better or for worse.

Evolve in a multitude of ways depending on current society and the circumstances surrounding it?? :eek::rant:

Can anybody offer me examples of where we have ignored the constitution to the letter?

Laws that make out inalienable rights 'privileges' that can be taken away.

Gun laws, assault weapons bans, drug laws.

The mangling and destructive interpretations of the general welfare clause which has been used to make our country more and more socialist year by year.

The interstate commerce clause which has been exploited in a multitude of ways.

Going to war without declaring war.

Our monetary system -- Congress doesn't coin or regulate the value of money - they let the fed do it?

I could go on and on, but I suggest you watch this: It's an 8 hour constitutional class by constitutional scholar and '04 libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. He also has a book called 'its good to be king' that i suggest as well. He is also traveling the country teaching this class as he does in the video. I saw him in Chicago in December. If you watch and really take in the videos, they will open your eyes immensely.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=constitution%20class&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#

You could also just google Ron Paul.:)

[The Better Version]

Yeah I've read Ron Paul's books and I must say they bring a tear to my eye, however, he never seems to be able to come up with any solutions besides "Let's do nothing". Had we done nothing 150 years ago sure, maybe his plans would have worked out, but it is muuuuuuuuch too late for that and so we must devise new and innovative techniques to combat these new and old problems.

I used to be a huge Ron Paul fan and he was the one who inspired me to pursue politics....it was only after I actually began to study the subject when I found out that there is a lot more to the words in the constitution then what is explicitly stated and that even though Ron Paul is incredibly knowledgeable in the subject, it's still a very impractical approach to solving the current issues. He's a good guy but he doesn't have any solutions.

Anyway we can argue back and forth as to what our founding fathers intended but the fact of the matter is we took the multiple interpretation approach in understanding the constitution as opposed to sticking with one single interpretation, which for you is the textualist approach and although some harm has been done, I still feel it was this aspect that made us a super power.

Without multiple interpretations we wouldn't have the luxury lives that we have today. Slavery would have still existed, children would still be working as young as 8, Our food would be god awful for us, and goods and services in general would be overpriced and poor quality, etc. Of course one could also argue that multiple interpretations caused our currency to move to a fiat system with inflation rising at a controlled rate, two wars that were unnecessary, and another super power with more control of our country than our own politicians.

Even though interpreting the constitution in many ways caused some bad to occur, a lot of good also came from this and I think the reason why we fucked up was because of who was in charge at the time, of course with any country you have, that will always pose a threat. You could say that a simple remedy for this would be to keep a strict interpretation of the law based on how it was written 200 years ago but then the argument comes back in full circle. Now you have the issue of dealing with new problems that our founding fathers did not anticipate. But it's not enough to only consider this but also to consider the new society which the old constitution resides in. No doubt, societies change with the times and what worked for people 200 years ago would not work out for us today.

We must be incredibly careful about how we interpret the constitution as well as create new laws but this is precisely why we have checks and balances and separation of powers. These are tools that forces our interpretations and actions to be evolutionary over revolutionary. I mean think about it. It takes about 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the 50 states to ratify a new law. But even if a new law is amended the judicial branch are the ones who interpret it in practice and ultimately decide whether its constitutional or not. Now why did they make it this way? Because they expected changes to occur and they needed a safe way for change to occur. If they wanted us to have one interpretation they would have made it much larger with policies attached to it, yet they didn't. In fact the only policies you'll really ever find in the constitution is prohibition of alcohol, slavery, and the Income tax.

Bottom line is, bad shit has happened recently and in the past, but that was due to incompetent leaders and bad interpretations of the constitution, not so much in regards to breaches in the constitution.

[drBOX]

Yeah I've read Ron Paul's books and I must say they bring a tear to my eye, however, he never seems to be able to come up with any solutions besides "Let's do nothing". Had we done nothing 150 years ago sure, maybe his plans would have worked out, but it is muuuuuuuuch too late for that and so we must devise new and innovative techniques to combat these new and old problems.


Paul does offer solutions. I totally disagree. His solution of, 'lets do nothing', is usually the idea that people are best left to solve their own problems without government intervention and interference. Today, people largely look to the government to solve their problems and herein lies much of the problem. Furthermore he leaves many things to the forces of free-market capitalism which has been the most efficient and advantageous organization of civilization that the world has ever known.

You talk of new problems -- what new problems? What are the problems that we can't deal with or are incongruent with a strict interpretation of the constitution?

I used to be a huge Ron Paul fan and he was the one who inspired me to pursue politics....it was only after I actually began to study the subject when I found out that there is a lot more to the words in the constitution then what is explicitly stated and that even though Ron Paul is incredibly knowledgeable in the subject, it's still a very impractical approach to solving the current issues. He's a good guy but he doesn't have any solutions.


Again, what problems? He has a solution to all problems. Just because he doesn't advocate the government as the solution to ALL our problems doesn't mean he fails to offer meaningful solutions.

Anyway we can argue back and forth as to what our founding fathers intended but the fact of the matter is we took the multiple interpretation approach in understanding the constitution as opposed to sticking with one single interpretation, which for you is the textualist approach and although some harm has been done, I still feel it was this aspect that made us a super power.


Free market capitalism made us a superpower. Free market capitalism is shaping China to be the next superpower. It is frightening when communist China is more capitalist than the United States. It's great being a super power but we are going broke in the endeavor. Paul would argue that this is not necessary and contradictory.

Without multiple interpretations we wouldn't have the luxury lives that we have today. Slavery would have still existed, children would still be working as young as 8, Our food would be god awful for us, and goods and services in general would be overpriced and poor quality, etc. Of course one could also argue that multiple interpretations caused our currency to move to a fiat system with inflation rising at a controlled rate, two wars that were unnecessary, and another super power with more control of our country than our own politicians.


Luxury lives that we have today? You mean the luxury lives we live on borrowed money? Or do you mean the luxury lives we live which have been provided on the basis of free market capitalism. Don't you understand that the constitution provides the basis for free market capitalism? It's because of capitalism and the free market that we have the lives we do today. It's the basis of something other than capitalism and the problem of government intervention that most of the problems we face arise.

Take for example education. Before government run education the United States was premier in math and science compared to the rest of the world. With the establishment of the Department of Education our standards have been continually sliding. All we can think to do is keep throwing money into a raging fire.

Even though interpreting the constitution in many ways caused some bad to occur, a lot of good also came from this and I think the reason why we fucked up was because of who was in charge at the time, of course with any country you have, that will always pose a threat. You could say that a simple remedy for this would be to keep a strict interpretation of the law based on how it was written 200 years ago but then the argument comes back in full circle. Now you have the issue of dealing with new problems that our founding fathers did not anticipate. But it's not enough to only consider this but also to consider the new society which the old constitution resides in. No doubt, societies change with the times and what worked for people 200 years ago would not work out for us today.


It wouldn't matter much who was in power if they simply recognized the limits to their power. Again you speak of new problems, but any problem put forth Ron Paul and the like have an appropriate solution. Just because it doesn't involve the government doesn't mean anything.


Bottom line is, bad shit has happened recently and in the past, but that was due to incompetent leaders and bad interpretations of the constitution, not so much in regards to breaches in the constitution.

I don't really know what to say. It's not 'bad' interpretations of the constitution. It's government breaching the limits of the constitution. Incompetent leaders = those who choose not to follow the constitution.

[TruthWielder]

Paul does offer solutions. I totally disagree. His solution of, 'lets do nothing', is usually the idea that people are best left to solve their own problems without government intervention and interference. Today, people largely look to the government to solve their problems and herein lies much of the problem. Furthermore he leaves many things to the forces of free-market capitalism which has been the most efficient and advantageous organization of civilization that the world has ever known.

You talk of new problems -- what new problems? What are the problems that we can't deal with or are incongruent with a strict interpretation of the constitution?




Again, what problems? He has a solution to all problems. Just because he doesn't advocate the government as the solution to ALL our problems doesn't mean he fails to offer meaningful solutions.




Free market capitalism made us a superpower. Free market capitalism is shaping China to be the next superpower. It is frightening when communist China is more capitalist than the United States. It's great being a super power but we are going broke in the endeavor. Paul would argue that this is not necessary and contradictory.




Luxury lives that we have today? You mean the luxury lives we live on borrowed money? Or do you mean the luxury lives we live which have been provided on the basis of free market capitalism. Don't you understand that the constitution provides the basis for free market capitalism? It's because of capitalism and the free market that we have the lives we do today. It's the basis of something other than capitalism and the problem of government intervention that most of the problems we face arise.

Take for example education. Before government run education the United States was premier in math and science compared to the rest of the world. With the establishment of the Department of Education our standards have been continually sliding. All we can think to do is keep throwing money into a raging fire.




It wouldn't matter much who was in power if they simply recognized the limits to their power. Again you speak of new problems, but any problem put forth Ron Paul and the like have an appropriate solution. Just because it doesn't involve the government doesn't mean anything.



I don't really know what to say. It's not 'bad' interpretations of the constitution. It's government breaching the limits of the constitution. Incompetent leaders = those who choose not to follow the constitution.

Hell-to the-fuck yes.

[Rust]

Take for example education. Before government run education the United States was premier in math and science compared to the rest of the world. With the establishment of the Department of Education our standards have been continually sliding. All we can think to do is keep throwing money into a raging fire.


1. Care to provide any statistics to back that assertion up?

2. That the U.S. might be slipping in comparison to the rest of the world, does not make it an argument against public education. Not only are the countries it has been slipping to have been countries with public education systems themselves, but the statistics show that children have been averaging the same (or in same cases improving) scores for the last 3+ decades:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2008/2009479.pdf


Take note that the U.S. Department of Education took effect in 1980, and these statistics start 6+ years before that.


That the U.S. is slipping in comparison with the rest of the world has more to do with:

a. Culture.

b. The rest of the world begginning to implement education systems on par (or better) to those in the U.S. To us a analogy, it would be as if we were competing in a weight lifting competition, and initially only the U.S. had a gym to train with. Well of course the U.S. would beat other teams at weight lifting and would rank on the top, since it was the only country with the capability to adequately train! Now that other countries have gyms, however, they have caught up.

Same applies here. Other countries have industrialized and have been able to provide similar education systems to their citizens and they have caught up.


All of that is to show the trend in time (that of increase in scores) , however even if we look at the current standing of public schools versus private schools, the public system is still vindicated:


"Most people assumed that the higher average scores in private schools meant that private schools were more effective--an assumption that undergirds much of the current thinking surrounding education policies and reforms. Surprisingly, however, the data on a nationally representative sample of 30,000 students in fourth and eighth grades showed public schools to be outperforming private schools in mathematics achievement after student background factors were considered. This issue was subsequently examined with the even more comprehensive 2003 NAEP data, covering a representative sample of almost 345,000 students. Similar patterns were seen, with public schools outperforming private schools and charter schools after accounting for demographic differences in the populations they served. Later, their results were confirmed in a report published by the U.S. Department of Education. However, other researchers and some policy advocates then weighed in on this new "public/private school debate," challenging the data and methodologies used to address this question and calling for longitudinal examinations of public and private school effectiveness. In this article, the authors briefly outline the renewed debate on public and private school achievement, considering the state of current knowledge, political schisms, and the implications for current policies and proposals. They also report on a new study, not of student achievement at one point in time, but on student "gains over time" in public and private schools, using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K). The results of this study are both intriguing and illuminating for the crucial question of the effectiveness of public and private schools. (Contains 1 table, 2 figures, and 24 notes.)"

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ794358&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ794358

[The Better Version]

Furthermore he leaves many things to the forces of free-market capitalism which has been the most efficient and advantageous organization of civilization that the world has ever known.

That's great except for the fact that free-market isn't even debatable anymore. You know why? Because Conservatives and Democrats alike would both agree that a limited free market society is the best option for this country. What you hear on the news these days isn't a debate about free-market and closed-market systems but rather less limited and more limited market systems.

You talk of new problems -- what new problems? What are the problems that we can't deal with or are incongruent with a strict interpretation of the constitution?

Oil crisis? Global warming? International dependency? Asymmetrical warfare?



Take for example education. Before government run education the United States was premier in math and science compared to the rest of the world. With the establishment of the Department of Education our standards have been continually sliding. All we can think to do is keep throwing money into a raging fire.

I will agree with you on this one. I'm a strong believer in federalism and strongly believe that education, though incredibly important, must be left to the states.

It wouldn't matter much who was in power if they simply recognized the limits to their power. Again you speak of new problems, but any problem put forth Ron Paul and the like have an appropriate solution. Just because it doesn't involve the government doesn't mean anything.

Oh you mean such policies as the abolition of the income tax? You realize the government generates 44% of their revenue from income taxes. And don't give me that bullshit, "But it's unconstitutional" because I can find exactly where it says Congress can do this. It's essentially the whole reason why we didn't stick with the Articles of Confederation.

A more practical solution to the income tax would be to lower the rate and increase the rate of corporate and sales/excise taxes.

I used to be like you. A huge Ron Paul supporter. Don't get me wrong, I still love the guy and much of his philosophy but only after studying the counter arguments was I able to see the other side of the coin. It's a crucial factor to take into consideration in politics because every policy has two sides to them. This is why it is important to consider all possible solutions so you can figure out the best approach. Don't follow a party, follow what makes sense. Hands off and hands on government are both bad ideas. I prefer limited hands on government. Now, have they gone too far? Yes, but not to a significant degree to where we need to revamp the system.

[drBOX]

1. Care to provide any statistics to back that assertion up?

2. That the U.S. might be slipping in comparison to the rest of the world, does not make it an argument against public education. Not only are the countries it has been slipping to have been countries with public education systems themselves, but the statistics show that children have been averaging the same (or in same cases improving) scores for the last 3+ decades:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2008/2009479.pdf


Take note that the U.S. Department of Education took effect in 1980, and these statistics start 6+ years before that.[/url]

I'm taking as starting the year 1953 when the Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) was established. American students at the time ranked number one in math and science. Eventually the department of education became a separate entity. Stats as of 2004 rank American students as twenty-first in math and science. Furthermore we spend ten times as much per student as we did in 1953. These stats come from it's good to be king by Badnarik. I cannot point you to a website for stats that early.

That the U.S. is slipping in comparison to the rest of the world is only part of the argument against government controlled and subsidized education.

Constitutionally, I don't see where there is justification for it. It's subsidy and costs, because not left to the free market, serve to establish quality education as harder and harder to come by. It's becoming more and more expensive, rising faster than inflation by a long shot.


That the U.S. is slipping in comparison with the rest of the world has more to do with:

a. Culture.

b. The rest of the world begginning to implement education systems on par (or better) to those in the U.S. To us a analogy, it would be as if we were competing in a weight lifting competition, and initially only the U.S. had a gym to train with. Well of course the U.S. would beat other teams at weight lifting and would rank on the top, since it was the only country with the capability to adequately train! Now that other countries have gyms, however, they have caught up.

Same applies here. Other countries have industrialized and have been able to provide similar education systems to their citizens and they have caught up.

I don't see how what you put forth is 'culture', although some of the reasons for our slipping are cultural. A big reason our education system is a joke is because of our values. Education is seen as some sort of right, something that the individual is entitled to. It's not valued and it's largely taken for granted.

And if your analogy were correct, I do not see why the United States should have lagged from first to twenty-first in math and science. Something disadvantageous has obviously occurred.

I mean, I see it, I'm sure many others do to. The fact of the matter is that we are graduating high school seniors who can barely read in a purposeful manner let alone string a few sentences of clear ideas together.

If government didn't have a monopoly on education things would be much different. There would be marketplace competition and in so much all aspects of education - for all - would improve dramatically.

All of that is to show the trend in time (that of increase in scores) , however even if we look at the current standing of public schools versus private schools, the public system is still vindicated:


"Most people assumed that the higher average scores in private schools meant that private schools were more effective--an assumption that undergirds much of the current thinking surrounding education policies and reforms. Surprisingly, however, the data on a nationally representative sample of 30,000 students in fourth and eighth grades showed public schools to be outperforming private schools in mathematics achievement after student background factors were considered. This issue was subsequently examined with the even more comprehensive 2003 NAEP data, covering a representative sample of almost 345,000 students. Similar patterns were seen, with public schools outperforming private schools and charter schools after accounting for demographic differences in the populations they served. Later, their results were confirmed in a report published by the U.S. Department of Education. However, other researchers and some policy advocates then weighed in on this new "public/private school debate," challenging the data and methodologies used to address this question and calling for longitudinal examinations of public and private school effectiveness. In this article, the authors briefly outline the renewed debate on public and private school achievement, considering the state of current knowledge, political schisms, and the implications for current policies and proposals. They also report on a new study, not of student achievement at one point in time, but on student "gains over time" in public and private schools, using data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K). The results of this study are both intriguing and illuminating for the crucial question of the effectiveness of public and private schools. (Contains 1 table, 2 figures, and 24 notes.)"

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ794358&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ794358[/QUOTE]

It's hard to take that study seriously when we have a clear idea of how the free market vs. government bureaucracy works. Because of government's monopoly on public education I think the extreme degree of difficulty the private schools face must be appreciated. And how advantageous it would be if a system with competition existed.

Furthermore I'm reluctant to take the value of the study at face value from a summary without a clear understanding of the methods and interpretations used.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html

Any thoughts?

Still, I was intrigued to read of a well-designed study released today by the Center on Education Policy that challenges decades of research on the advantages of private schools. "Contrary to popular belief, we can find no evidence that private schools actually increase student performance," said Jack Jennings, the center's president and a former staffer in the Democratic-controlled House, in a press release. "Instead, it appears that private schools simply have higher percentages of students who would perform well in any environment based on their previous performance and background."

The study suggests vouchers for private schools are unnecessary because — once you control for socioeconomic status — students at private schools aren't performing any better than those at public schools. The study says that it is "the kinds of economic and resource advantages their parents can give [students]" — as well as the level of parental involvement in their kids' education —that determines success or failure in high school. That's a message the teachers' unions and Democrats in general love: The problem isn't in the schools; it's with social inequality.

Except that's not exactly what the data shows. It's true that controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) eliminates most of the public-school/private-school differences in achievement-test scores in math, reading, science and history. But even after you control for SES, Catholic schools run by holy orders (not those overseen by the local bishop) turned out to perform better than other schools studied. True, as the study says, there are only a small number of religious-order schools. But the data suggests that the type of school a kid attends does affect how well he will do — and that we could learn something from how holy orders run their schools. The Center on Education Policy, however, is an advocacy group for public schools, so it didn't look into why holy-order schools are succeeding where others fail.

The center also downplays another finding: While controlling for SES eliminated most public school/private-school differences in achievement test scores, it did not eliminate differences in the most widely used test of developed abilities, the SAT. (As I explained more fully here, developed abilities are those nurtured through schoolwork, reading, engaging a piece of art, and any other activities that spark critical thinking. Developed abilities aren't inborn traits but honed competencies, more akin to athletic skill gained through practice rather than raw IQ. By contrast, achievement tests measure the amount of material students have committed to memory in any particular field.) Combined with high-school grades, SAT scores are the best predictor of how kids will do in their freshman year of college. And the data in the new study shows that private-school students outperform public-school students on the SAT.

Isn't that just because richer private-school kids can afford to be coached more before the SAT? No — remember that this study carefully controlled for socioeconomic status. Rather, it appears private schools do more to develop students' critical-thinking abilities — not just the rote memorization required to do well on achievement tests.

In short, today's study shows that sending your kid to private school — particularly one run by a holy order like the Jesuits — is still a better way to ensure that he or she will get into college. Just don't expect all education experts to agree.

[drBOX]

That's great except for the fact that free-market isn't even debatable anymore. You know why? Because Conservatives and Democrats alike would both agree that a limited free market society is the best option for this country. What you hear on the news these days isn't a debate about free-market and closed-market systems but rather less limited and more limited market systems.

The free-market isn't even debatable anymore? I don't know what that means. I don't think that all conservatives and democrats would agree that a limited free market society is the best option for this country-- at least not those who know reality from the twilight zone. And of course most would not necessarily agree. They're politicians for Christ's sake. I could really care less as to what conservatives and democrats alike would agree to if it's wrong for the country.

What i hear on the news these days? The news these days is pretty worthless... Anyways. It has nothing to do with a closed-market. What is a closed-market? It's free-market vs. not free-market (for various reasons). The free-market pretty consistently providing the most advantageous benefits to all. That should really be our starting place -- the free market should be our starting place.

Oil crisis? Global warming? International dependency? Asymmetrical warfare?

You would have to be more specific for me to know exactly what you're talking about as to debate an issue.

Oil Crises - free market ingenuity and new technology
A could go into 'global warming'.
International dependency - ???
Asymmetrical warfare - ???

Oh you mean such policies as the abolition of the income tax? You realize the government generates 44% of their revenue from income taxes. And don't give me that bullshit, "But it's unconstitutional" because I can find exactly where it says Congress can do this. It's essentially the whole reason why we didn't stick with the Articles of Confederation.

A more practical solution to the income tax would be to lower the rate and increase the rate of corporate and sales/excise taxes.

For smaller government, yes, cut off the funding, income tax. I don't care how much revenue the government gets from income taxes. It's TOO MUCH. Solution to increase corporate and sales taxes? How about a solution is SMALLER GOVERNMENT? We all have to do it in our lives- budget, cut costs, be self-sustaining and solvent. How about requiring the same of the government so we're not squeezed to death by ever increasing taxation, and ever diminishing purchasing power.

How about NO NEW taxes. People can't see that this country is getting poorer and poorer, and taxed more and more. Things have got to change.

It's essentially the whole reason we didn't stick with the articles of confederation? Don't know what you mean.

Now, have they gone too far? Yes, but not to a significant degree to where we need to revamp the system.

Not to a significant degree? Are you kidding? Do you know your families share of the national debt? Is there an excuse for that?

[Rust]

I'm taking as starting the year 1953 when the Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) was established. American students at the time ranked number one in math and science. Eventually the department of education became a separate entity. Stats as of 2004 rank American students as twenty-first in math and science. Furthermore we spend ten times as much per student as we did in 1953. These stats come from it's good to be king by Badnarik. I cannot point you to a website for stats that early.

That the U.S. is slipping in comparison to the rest of the world is only part of the argument against government controlled and subsidized education.

Constitutionally, I don't see where there is justification for it. It's subsidy and costs, because not left to the free market, serve to establish quality education as harder and harder to come by. It's becoming more and more expensive, rising faster than inflation by a long shot.

1. Well you said the Department of Education, not the HEW. Those are two different things. However, the

2. That the U.S. is slipping in comparing to the rest of the world is not an argument against government education precisely because of the facts I pointed out and you didn't really refute:

a. Scores have either stayed the same or risen.

b. The countries that the U.S. has slipped against have public education themselves!

3. The constitutionality of public education is another argument I'm not here to question. I'm here to question your claim education has suffered because it went public.



I don't see how what you put forth is 'culture', although some of the reasons for our slipping are cultural. A big reason our education system is a joke is because of our values. Education is seen as some sort of right, something that the individual is entitled to. It's not valued and it's largely taken for granted.

And if your analogy were correct, I do not see why the United States should have lagged from first to twenty-first in math and science. Something disadvantageous has obviously occurred.

I mean, I see it, I'm sure many others do to. The fact of the matter is that we are graduating high school seniors who can barely read in a purposeful manner let alone string a few sentences of clear ideas together.

If government didn't have a monopoly on education things would be much different. There would be marketplace competition and in so much all aspects of education - for all - would improve dramatically.



1. I didn't say that what I put forth was culture (assuming you mean the specific arguments I made). I said culture is a reason - one I didn't really delve into. Apparently you agree.

2. You cannot conclude that something disadvantageous occurred precisely because the decrease can be explained not in something disadvantageous happening in the U.S. but something advantageous happening to the rest of the world. The U.S. could have remained the same or even slightly improved -just as the test scores I provided show - and it could have still lowered in ranking if the rest of the world improved at a bigger rate (again, many through having public education systems themselves).


3. Government has a monopoly on education? Sorry but monopoly precludes the existence of private systems by definition. Private systems exist. Government might have some restrictions - which is not a monopoly - but you would have to show just how detrimental they are, which you haven't. Personal opinion or personal anecdotes aren't really evidence.


It's hard to take that study seriously when we have a clear idea of how the free market vs. government bureaucracy works. Because of government's monopoly on public education I think the extreme degree of difficulty the private schools face must be appreciated. And how advantageous it would be if a system with competition existed.

Furthermore I'm reluctant to take the value of the study at face value from a summary without a clear understanding of the methods and interpretations used.

1. What you call a "clear idea" is your own biased opinion. That is not worth much in an argument. Data, on the other hand, is.

2. While it's true that I didn't provide you with the full journal article initially - see below for the link to the full article - your own "evidence" is in a much much worse shape... It either comes for hearsay - you alluding to a Badnarik book - or from an op-ed piece in the New York Times. If we're going to accept what you have provided as evidence, then we sure as hell are going to accept what I provided as evidence...


Any thoughts?

Sure.


1. That Op-Ed piece isn't responding to the study/article I was linking to. The study I was linking to was published in 2008. In fact, it was published precisely as a response to criticism like the one made in that article you linked to. Here's the full article:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6952/is_9_89/ai_n28526093/


"After accounting for differences in student/school demographics and initial kindergarten scores, we found that public school students outperformed Catholic school students by the fifth grade and rivaled the performance of students in other private schools. The difference of 6 points between Catholic and public schools was statistically significant and indicates that public school students had gained almost an extra half year of schooling.

A final important factor that our HLM analysis revealed is how much variation in achievement is accounted for by the various school and demographic predictors. It is worth noting how little variation school type really accounts for in students' growth in achievement, contrary to the assumptions of voucher advocates. Specifically, while all of the variables in our model together explained 62% of the achievement differences between schools, school type alone accounted for less than 5% of these differences, with demographic considerations accounting for a much greater share."

2. Even if students from private Catholic schools were always outperforming public school students, which is not the case as shown above, the fact that they outperformed other private schools suggests that private schools are not inherently better, but that there is something outside of ownership type (i.e. public ownership or private ownership) that is improving their results; like for example religious piety, religious culture, etc.

[The Better Version]

The free-market isn't even debatable anymore? I don't know what that means. I don't think that all conservatives and democrats would agree that a limited free market society is the best option for this country-- at least not those who know reality from the twilight zone. And of course most would not necessarily agree. They're politicians for Christ's sake. I could really care less as to what conservatives and democrats alike would agree to if it's wrong for the country.

Ok my bad. What I meant to say was, that most politicians alike would agree that a completely free market is strong on the industrial side but carries with it many negative social and political consequences. So even though our economy would be good, the country would suck and we'd go back about 100 years.

What i hear on the news these days? The news these days is pretty worthless... Anyways. It has nothing to do with a closed-market. What is a closed-market? It's free-market vs. not free-market (for various reasons). The free-market pretty consistently providing the most advantageous benefits to all. That should really be our starting place -- the free market should be our starting place.

Sigh....blowing the media waaaaay out of proportion. Of course the news media exhibits bias. Everyone knows that, however, it's not as if they are fabricating complete lies. Ultimately the best way to know what's going on in the World is to explore it yourself but unfortunately most people don't have the luxury of being able to do that so they must resort to secondary sources such as the news media. As long as you keep in mind that it's more than likely a one sided opinion and read other literature pertaining to the matter, then I should think one would have a pretty good idea. The only people who believe that any type of secondary source is the absolute truth are the ones who can actually be brainwashed by commercials and ads. If you're outraged by these things, then you must have been duped.


You would have to be more specific for me to know exactly what you're talking about as to debate an issue.

Oil Crises - free market ingenuity and new technology
A could go into 'global warming'.
International dependency - ???
Asymmetrical warfare - ???

It's essentially the whole reason we didn't stick with the articles of confederation? Don't know what you mean.

And this is why we fail to agree on some of the issues. Study up on the literature first and then we can have a really good debate.



smaller government, yes, cut off the funding, income tax. I don't care how much revenue the government gets from income taxes. It's TOO MUCH. Solution to increase corporate and sales taxes? How about a solution is SMALLER GOVERNMENT? We all have to do it in our lives- budget, cut costs, be self-sustaining and solvent. How about requiring the same of the government so we're not squeezed to death by ever increasing taxation, and ever diminishing purchasing power.

How about NO NEW taxes. People can't see that this country is getting poorer and poorer, and taxed more and more. Things have got to change.

It's essentially the whole reason we didn't stick with the articles of confederation? Don't know what you mean.

This is a very good and valid argument right here. Personally, I feel we have gotten too big, which is why I'm a little upset with Obama's increase in this years budget from Bush's, however, I don't think we need to scale back nearly as much as Paul or you say. I think the fundamental difference between you and I is that you believe most people are good at heart and are willing to cooperate and share with one another. I for one am more of a Hobbisian theorist of humanity, in that I believe most people work for themselves and even though they may be willing to help out somewhat, I don't believe they will help out enough to actually make the system work for everyone. People are just too selfish to have a smaller government. This is why we need some sort of referee in the middle of the Majority and minority class. Has our government gotten too big? Yes, but as stated before, not to a degree where I would consider the end of the United States. That's in the future.

[ArmsMerchant]

Sobriety checkpoints are clearly unconstitutional. When you corral every single driver into a checkpoint (which is a search) without having probable cause for each driver, this is a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Incorrect on several points. One, no "search" is conducted. Two, numerous courts have ruled that random traffic stops are okay--when looking for drunk drivers, the small inconvenience to the non-drunks is clearly worth the gain to public safety gotten by getting drunks off the road.

Back to topic--Lincoln suspended the rights of habeus corpus during the Civil War; Roosevelt violated the civil rights of the thousands of Japanese-Amrican who were placed in concentration camps during WW II, and the Patriot Act has --for all intents and purposes--rendered the Bill of Rights null and void.