John Smith wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Yes, you are. But the rest of us with sane mind, and not residing in
mental institutions, will handle it for you and make sure the true
intent of the forefathers, and the will of the majority of the people,
are carried out.

The Constitution says what it means and means what is says ...

Regards,
JS


You make it sound like some kind of religious proclamation.

On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Actually, what you interpret as "vague" was meant to me, and is a loud
and dramatic statement, it means, "VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT!"

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Actually, what you interpret as "vague" was meant to me, and is a loud
and dramatic statement, it means, "VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT!"

Regards,
JS

It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. Such is the nature of a
republic. People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

On Sep 14, 10:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

You have to choose your poison, or go live in Antarctica.

It work very well in the ancient Greek city-states. Look what had
happened since they have joined the Common Market and EU !

On Sep 14, 7:32*pm, bpnjensen wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:53*pm, John Smith wrote:

On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

As long as you have a Republic, people will hand over the reigns to
the representatives to do the hard work. *In exchange for having
elected people to sit down and work out the hard and complex details
of difficult legislation, power will be concentrated and expanded in
places that you'd rather not see it. *Such is the nature of a
republic. *People who believe otherwise are fooling themselves.

The only way to avoid this and maintain something other than a
dictatorship, and it is a severely double-edged sword, is through
direct Democracy. *With that, the people make ALL the rules and bypass
the middleman of the republic. *But, beware - there is nothing more
disjointed and cumbersome and damned downright confusing than a set of
laws created by The People.

My guess is that both of these ideas work better on a very small scale
- like in a town or a county. *Once you get to the Statewide level,
things start breaking down again, and at the national level - well,
you see what we have.

- You have to choose your poison,
- or go live in Antarctica.

That's a Chilling Thought . . .

John Smith wrote:
On 9/14/2010 4:05 PM, dave wrote:

...
It's a little late for that.

Where exactly does it say"very limited government"? If the government is
the people why would they want to limit the people?

In the part which says that any powers not given (mentioned) are
reserved for the state and people ... better late than never ...

Regards,
JS

More vagueness. I think you mean the states. The amendment before the
one you attempted to quote says we have other rights, besides those
listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

And "the people" manifests in our form of government as the House of
Representatives.

I'll make a deal with you. If you agree to disband the military, except
for a National Guard, I'll give up the Department of Education.

On Sep 14, 4:05*pm, dave wrote:
John Smith wrote:
On 9/3/2010 8:34 PM, dave wrote:
We're supposed to interpret it the way we see fit. Meanings change over
time.

Actually, what you interpret as "vague" was meant to me, and is a loud
and dramatic statement, it means, "VERY LIMITED GOVERNMENT!"

Regards,
JS

It's a little late for that.

- Where exactly does it say"very limited government"?

'Special Dave',

All Un-Alienable Rights That Are Not Vested
in 'We The People'
* and clearly defined as the Duties of the Federal
Government {Federation}
* are Reserved To The Individual {United} States . . .

-ergo- Limited Role* of the US Federal Government [.]

* Duties and Responsibilities {Functions}

- If the government is the people

-special-dave- 'We The People' -are- "We The People"

- why would they want to limit the people?

The US Federal Government is simply the
'limited' agent of "We The People"
-since- "We The People" reside in the
Individual States except for 'DC'
-and- "We The People" are 1st and foremost
are Citizens of those Individual States
-and- in-addition Citizen of the Federation
of those States 'collectively' The USA.

The 'Primary Agent' of "We The People" are
the 'Individual States' that we reside in . . .
NOT The US Federal Government which was
collectively formed by the 'Individual States'
as the 'Primary Agent' of "We The People" as
a Collective Umbrella Organization for National
Defense, International Diplomacy and Global
Commerce.

A Citizen of the "California Republic" [USA] ~ RHF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic