Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Was Government inconsequential in the 1800's? It may have been smaller, but inconsequential? I doubt it. Maybe government was less intrusive during the 1800's. Maybe elected representatives had more respect for the law in the 1800's.

And of course you take the good with the "bad" But just because you are willing to put up with a little bad in exchange for some good, that's no excuse to just pile on more bad in exchange for nothing.

I suspect if you woke up Monday morning and the federal Govt only could do what the Constitution says or implies it could do a lot of people would cheer. However, maybe 6 months or so down the road all you would hear from most of those same people is grumbling about all those things the Govt does that is taken for granted and not even given a thought to. All these things would cease.

In the 1800s to the average person living in rural areas the only realization the Govt even existed would be what they saw in the local newspaper when they went into town maybe once a month for provisions or what came over the telegraph or what was relayed by a traveler. To most they lived in an isolated environment and either the local sheriff (if they had one) or the occasional passing Army column was their exposure to Govt.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I suspect if you woke up Monday morning and the federal Govt only could do what the Constitution says or implies it could do a lot of people would cheer. However, maybe 6 months or so down the road all you would hear from most of those same people is grumbling about all those things the Govt does that is taken for granted and not even given a thought to. All these things would cease.

In the 1800s to the average person living in rural areas the only realization the Govt even existed would be what they saw in the local newspaper when they went into town maybe once a month for provisions or what came over the telegraph or what was relayed by a traveler. To most they lived in an isolated environment and either the local sheriff (if they had one) or the occasional passing Army column was their exposure to Govt.

OK Monsieur Val-Jean, just as long as you really needed that bread... Alright everyone, move along, nothing to see here.

The Constitution is pretty specific and direct. It doesn't imply much if anything. But, if you woke up Monday morning and the federal Govt only could do what the Constitution says it could do, a lot of people who respect the rule of law would cheer, and a lot of people who have been living off of the spoils of governmental corruption would grumble, including many career politicians. But then the real work could begin, and that would be solving our country's problems in a way consistent with the law as written by the founders, and not in the lazy, politically expedient way that it's been done for over the last 100 years.

I'm glad the federal government built the network of expressways that contact the country together. I remember what it was like driving up US1 and like that, going through one little town after another. Get out of that town and one lane each way. Head on collisions were not uncommon. I'm especially thankful for social security and Medicare. FDR responsible for the former, and LBJ largely for the latter. Many people don't know it, but LBJ taught school in rural Texas when he was a young man. He never forgot the poverty of many of the young kids, both Mexican immigrants, and Caucasian native to Texas. Matter of fact that was one of the things that drove him to institute the "Great Society.'

A little thing called a police action in Vietnam largely ruined that initiative. According to a bio I read on Lyndon, after he became a senator he befriended FDR. It was through that friendship that he was able to have the federal government grant a loan to bring electricity to a large portion of the population of the hill country of Texas who had never had it. Everything the goverment does ain't 'a bridge to nowhere', or a handout to people that don't need it.

I've read the US Constitution, a couple of times actually, and it always seemed to me that the 'the country was founded in such a great document before it was sent down the drain' crowd has been busier parroting political spin than reading a very short text.

The constitution is just the basic framework for setting up the government. Virtually all of it deals with the top structure and responsibilities of the three government branches. As far as I can tell that's still pretty much the same.
Then it proscribes a process for how everything else is to be set up i.e. bills are approved by majority in Congress and signed by the President, after which they are laws. When there is a question or dispute, there is the supreme court established by the Constitution without any specifics to for example the number of its members (and any other courts the Congress may choose to establish) to settle what's right and what's wrong.

In my opinion anybody who thinks the skeleton of government from the US Constitution can be a functioning body is developmentally stuck in pre-teen years. The truth is that US has never ever had a government like that, before or after the Constitution.

US is what it is today because of the Constitution and because of the way people have voted. If you don't like the country as it is today you've got to change at least one of these two.

Originally Posted by gugi

I've read the US Constitution, a couple of times actually, and it always seemed to me that the 'the country was founded in such a great document before it was sent down the drain' crowd has been busier parroting political spin than reading a very short text.

The constitution is just the basic framework for setting up the government. Virtually all of it deals with the top structure and responsibilities of the three government branches. As far as I can tell that's still pretty much the same.
Then it proscribes a process for how everything else is to be set up i.e. bills are approved by majority in Congress and signed by the President, after which they are laws. When there is a question or dispute, there is the supreme court established by the Constitution without any specifics to for example the number of its members (and any other courts the Congress may choose to establish) to settle what's right and what's wrong.

In my opinion anybody who thinks the skeleton of government from the US Constitution can be a functioning body is developmentally stuck in pre-teen years. The truth is that US has never ever had a government like that, before or after the Constitution.

US is what it is today because of the Constitution and because of the way people have voted. If you don't like the country as it is today you've got to change at least one of these two.

I too am amazed how anyone could read the Constitution and not understand it's meaning. It really is quite a simple and direct document leaving no doubt as to its true intent, especially when read in context with the other founding documents, as well as the writings and correspondence of the founding fathers.

Originally Posted by gugi

I've read the US Constitution, a couple of times actually, and it always seemed to me that the 'the country was founded in such a great document before it was sent down the drain' crowd has been busier parroting political spin than reading a very short text.

The constitution is just the basic framework for setting up the government. Virtually all of it deals with the top structure and responsibilities of the three government branches. As far as I can tell that's still pretty much the same.
Then it proscribes a process for how everything else is to be set up i.e. bills are approved by majority in Congress and signed by the President, after which they are laws. When there is a question or dispute, there is the supreme court established by the Constitution without any specifics to for example the number of its members (and any other courts the Congress may choose to establish) to settle what's right and what's wrong.

In my opinion anybody who thinks the skeleton of government from the US Constitution can be a functioning body is developmentally stuck in pre-teen years. The truth is that US has never ever had a government like that, before or after the Constitution.

US is what it is today because of the Constitution and because of the way people have voted. If you don't like the country as it is today you've got to change at least one of these two.

Gugi, you are wrong. Even a pre-teen can see through your Emperors New Clothes "anybody who thinks government from the Constitution can be a functioning body is developmentally stuck" fallacy. The Constitution is not a just framework or skeleton that can be changed and molded at will, decorated with whatever seems popular at the time. I'm sure that you'd like it to be, and would also like others to believe it is, but it is not.