Why We Couldn't Create Our Constitution Today

Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 7 months ago to Government
2 comments | Share | Flag

This article turned up in me din'os email today. Thought it would be of interest here.
Me dino can easily imagine what would be said should an attempt be made to create a new Constitution today (something banana republics do all the time).
Oh, those nasty Founding Fathers! They had SLAVES! I know that was a common practice back then, but even the once-revered George Washington.had SLAVES!
That means everything those nasty greedy morally corrupt slave owners wrote and called law is CONTAMINATED! No, the Civil War does not count. That came later.
Karl Marx never had slaves. His writings may have turned, well, just a measly few million people into slaves but at least families remained intact. Marx, Lenin and Stalin never caught any slaves in Africa or made bids for slaves on an auction block.
That's why we need to talk to people like Bolshevik Bernie and Alexandria (The Great) Ocasio-Cortez.
Yeah, such great minds know how to make an American version socialism work.
Venezuela is a (South) American country way down under, you see. It never seems to work out that well down there but a global model promises paradise for all.
I'd like to call such a worldwide socialist government. "The World Federation" has a nice ring because things reminiscent of Star Trek has positive connotations.
Ah, not The Borg episodes, mind you. Our elite betters for party bosses would never treat us like that. "Trust The Party" shall be mandated as our unifying cry.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/28...
SOURCE URL: https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/09/17/how-the-stars-aligned-for-the-founding-of-america/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTTJJMVpEWTJPR1EyTURNMCIsInQiOiI1Qm5XRG5wUkdjeVY2KzZ1Tm9GNlBqSklZdzUyTEpPV01pY1ZBdUxESFg3TlhkVFVqQnptUTl6VWxpbFplck9WNjR4SURuZklwbldzN0pCUVwvcGV6eTJNQndCWEMyaHJKUnJnQlwvYXhzRVdxVVl2U25FYUV6Z1RlUzdQRXJ4VmVoIn0%3D


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 7 months ago
    "The unity born of this great existential threat 'stifled the ordinary diversity of opinions on great national questions'."
    I'm not knowledgeable about history enough name the national questions of the time. But I think they must be simpler if gov't is a smaller fraction of GDP. Should schools that teach religious tracts get gov't funding? Should health plans include extra mammograms? Should Social Security be indexed to CPI, GDP Deflator, or another measure of inflation? How should we handle suspects we catch in foreign countries whose gov'ts can't admit they helped catch religious extremists? What to do we do with cities and states that want their people to have the right to use drugs? What about cities and states that respect people's rights to guns? Should insurance companies be able to discriminate based on race, sex, etc? How do we make one rule on transgendered bathrooms for Madison, WI and the suburbs of Salt Lake City?

    It may be simplistic, but it seems like if we limited gov't spending, we should be able to respect local values without affecting interstate commerce or ingress/egress between cities and states.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 5 years, 7 months ago
      The federal government would be spending less by simply being less intrusive "to respect local values" as you wrote..
      Originally, states pretty much ran their own states while the federal government raised an army and a navy to protect all the states and the trade between the states and foreign countries. "It may be simplistic" as you also wrote, but me dino likes simple.
      That's because keeping stuff simple keeps stuff from becoming complicated before complicated becomes too complicated and then watch it all go to crap as in why we couldn't create our Constitution today..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo