Is a new America civil war inevitable and unstopable at this point?

Good googly moogly . You think there are still some around who think that SLAVERY is OK? Hell, all the states even agree on Tarriffs actually, as the South is now as industrialized as the North

 

I'm curious, just what specific liberties do you see us as having lost or in danger of losing?

 

Oh, hell yes, there are still those around. They probably would have found by now that slavery is economically obsolete, but that doesn't mean that they believe blacks are any more human now than they were 150 years ago.

The issues are more psychological now than economic. Those southern boys are simply dreaming up ways their rights and freedoms are being trampled in order to fuel each other's forever resentments.

 

Well, let's see.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...​

This is a convention for proposing amendments. I suppose one could argue that such a convention for proposing amendments could offer an amendment that rewrites the entire Constitution. But it seems unlikely in the extreme.

So 2/3rds of the states or 34 states will have to call for a convention.
Once Amendments are approved and sent to the states 3/4ths of the states, or 38 states, will have to approve the Amendments.

I do not see a complete rewriting of the Constitution here.

The Liberty Amendments offers a good starting point.

 

When you presume that, "We both agree that these three programs are representative of the problems that occur when a government oversteps its Constitutional bounds," I suggest that you refrain from the temptation to project your opinion onto me, much as that would enhance its validity.

You are at liberty to entertain your notions. The Constitution and the realm of imagination both afford such self-indulgence. As a pragmatist, I cannot but deal in reality.

Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act are, as I averred, duly legislated laws of the land and the designated arbiter of the law is the Supreme Court. Since none has been ruled unconstitutional, they shall remain the law of the land until repealed by the same democratic process by which they were instituted.

 

But still they have not seen fit to include among their members anarchists, rapists, murders, drug dealers and cop-car poopers. What could they be thinking? I mean that's what they need to do in order to get leftwingers to cheer for them and the mainstream media.

 

Slavery continues to be quite popular all over the world. I do not believe it will ever be eradicated.
The US Civil War was complex.

Its seeds can be found in the US Constitution which limited the South's political power by declaring that slaves would be counted as 3/5ths of a person for representation purposes. Eventually the greater population in the North would compel political compromise on limiting or ending slavery. The only other option was war.

Should we blame Christians and Christianity? The Abolitionists called slavery a sin. They fought slavery by any means available to them.
Should we blame the Fire Eaters who called for secession?
Should we blame the discovery of gold in the California territory and Manifest Destiny which resulted in a race across America and the demand to extend slavery to the territories?
Should we blame the Compromise of 1850?
Or the Republican Party?

These were the big causes. Important, but subtle were the ideas of liberty. Would we move to a national government with the states mere appendages of a vast national government or would we have a Federal system where the federal government would have vast powers to fulfil enumerated Constitutional obligations?

The Nationalists won the war but did not settle the issue. Nationalism is always dangerous to the peoples' liberties. Slavery clouded that issue entirely.

 

right-wingers are doing a fabulous job of constantly TALKING about revolution, civil war, and secession.


but that's all they do. Talk.

 

I wouldn't say redefining is within their power. Open interpretation maybe.

It doesn't necessarily have to be completely re-written. The Constitution is actually a wonderful document that could work well into the future, but not when it's being trampled on to death, due to the many interpretations that those of the political divide continue to conjure up. It's not that difficult to understand, but due to the nature of the Old English it was written in, scholars and lawyers continue to re-interpret what the original intent of the document actually was. Perhaps we should update it with modern English. Kind of a kick in the face to tradition and heritage, but it would help clarify what the actual, original intent was, instead of Americans continuously bickering about it.

The Constitution shouldn't be pliable and easily changed on a whim. It's a very difficult thing to amend the Constitution and should be. It should not be a difficult thing to see if laws are kept within the confines of the Constitution.

Probably my fault. What I'm trying to say is that Socialism fails the people under Socialism, without the help of outside forces. The Communist Soviet Union failed its people long before Reagan became involved.

 

Darn. And I thought we agreed.
What part of that did you object to? We clearly agree that none of the three have a Constitutional basis.

Why thank you. I see the circle of individual liberty being tightened to the point where I may do nothing that has not been, in some way, pre-approved by some busybody bureaucrat. And you, you see nothing at all.

I am sure you mean it. The reality is that Social Security, Medicare, and the Affordable Care Act are unconstitutional on their face. None of the three have any basis in our Constitution. That does not change the reality that you see that each has been passed into law and supported by tyrants who seek to increase their power by diminishing ours.

While true, this does not change the fact that they have no basis in the Constitution. I despise Democracy as it usually results in despotism and tyranny. These three programs, two of which are popular, seemingly, are good examples of serfdom coming slowly to people who are not eternally vigilant.

 

Liberty is my ability to live my life as I choose. I will give you a few examples from building my house a few years ago.
I could not select a toilet that was not federally approved.
I could not select a shower head that was not federally approved.
I could not select lights that were not federally approved.
I could not select windows that were not federally approved.
I had to build unnecessary safety rails in places where people would never venture before I could move in.
I had to build unnecessary railings in places where the next week would have broad, sweeping stairs.
I had to spend over a thousand dollars on the two items above so I could move in. They damaged my brickwork. And they were compelled upon me by a busybody bureaucrat with a checklist instead of sense.

I have to tell the government way more about myself than I want to. The feds have no business knowing how much money I earn or how I earn it.
The feds have no business spying on me.
The feds have no business knowing what my health status is.

I cannot think of any broad category of activity I can do that the federal government does not regulate.

We are no longer free men and women. But we once were and we could be again.

 

I feel your pain there. I had to tear out and rebuild a stairway because the landings were 3/4" taller than the stairs. Cost me almost $10,000 by the time we were done. I had to tear up a newly laid hardwood floor to place an outlet along side a stairwell, where no one could ever reach it or use it.

 

As a Democrat rape and murder are among my favorite things to do. But I have little tolerance for cop-car poopers, they should be severely punished.

 

It is a fantasy, but it's a leftist one (look who started this thread). For some reason the left wants the right to do something that gives the left the excuse to unleash military force on their political enemies. I imagine eventually they'll just make something up.

 

[video=youtube;OPewZSNCCiw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPewZSNCCiw[/video]

 

We'll see an even further dive into Religious Fundamentalism already happening within the religious right. I could imagine a Talibanesque insurgency, not a civil war.

 

Not to be a smart aleck, but if you move to Mexico, you can have all of that.

 

The Constitution does not allow Obamacare. It does not allow Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education spending, legislation regarding marriage, murder, etc, etc.

All of those items of governance, whether they should even be subjects for governance - all fall under the purview of the states. As the 10th amendment states,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In other words, if the Constitution does not specifically authorize the FedGov to perform an "enumerated" function - then the FedGov does not possess that power - at all. If the citizens want the FedGov to possess a power that is not granted in the Constitution - there is an amendment process.

Prohibition was not a specifically enumerated power. The teetotalers wanted a dry country, and wanted the FedGov to declare alcohol illegal. Unfortunately they had enough support and were able to pass an amendment. Of course it was a disaster, and they had to pass another amendment nullifying the first amendment.

Now, the Constitution has been so bastardized and butchered by misinterpretation, that the FedGov passes prohibitions against anything it wants without any amendments. Pot is illegal, cocaine is illegal, etc. It doesn't matter if you think those things should be illegal or not - what matters is that the FedGov has no Constitutional authority to make them illegal or regulate them.

The enemies of freedom get away with these things by deliberately misinterpreting the Constitution. The Commerce Clause, the necessary and proper clause, etc, etc have been interpreted so as to grant the FedGov vast, sweeping, dictatorial powers.

If the Constitution says that the FedGov can do anything it wants - then we as citizens are at the mercy of government, we are not free. It is that simple.

"The essence of freedom is the limitation of government. That is the fundamental principle upon which America was founded. Sadly, America abandoned that principle many decades ago - and of course you were never taught these things in the school you attended.

 

I believe I should be able to do as I please with my life without having to go to Mexico. Or Belize.

 

OK, not really related to the civil war topic, but for someone who styles himself, "devoted to Marx" I guess that's the norm.

I do remember that interview though, that was the won where the CNN reporter got into an argument with the people their as she was defending the administration and I think she got suspended. But that fun stuff was cut off.

By the way, Marx was dead on with Duck Soup

 

It's an example of circular logic, which you often employ.

 

Oh good God no! That's top quality prime-time entertainment for the whole family that is! As a graphic representation of what the OWS movement and the leftwingers' support for it meant for this nation, there could have been no better symbolic statement.

 

I do? Could you give me an example of circular logic that I've employed?

 

I'm moving on to sodomy next week, just to (*)(*)(*)(*) off Texans.

 

So far as I know Texans have no problems with sodomy. Forking over the other fellow is a time honored tradition in business or football. Or did you mean something else by that statement?