I agree with Newt:.. what a stupid idea!

SmarterthanYou said:
there are places in the constitution/bill of rights that say that very thing, like 'shall make no law', 'shall not be infringed', etc.

No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.

the founders experienced the effects of those that wanted rights restricted.....why do you believe that they would fight a war to break free of that, just to create another government that would do the same?
Click to expand...

First of all wasn't it Madison who said, if men were angels no government would be necessary. That about sums it up. Rights have to have limits but very very very few.
 
Yakuda said:
First of all wasn't it Madison who said, if men were angels no government would be necessary. That about sums it up. Rights have to have limits but very very very few.
Click to expand...

sure, all the founders believed that government was a necessary evil. The problem that develops when one 'allows' limits on rights is that INEVITABLY others come along and say it's not limited enough, like we have now with gun control
 
SmarterthanYou said:
sure, all the founders believed that government was a necessary evil. The problem that develops when one 'allows' limits on rights is that INEVITABLY others come along and say it's not limited enough, like we have now with gun control
Click to expand...

Right the creation of a necessary evil like government is an inherent limitation on rights. By virtue of that fact alone it's too late to say there shouldn't be limits on rights. What we should do is fight to keep those limits minimal and rare as I have already stated.
 
Yakuda said:
Right the creation of a necessary evil like government is an inherent limitation on rights. By virtue of that fact alone it's too late to say there shouldn't be limits on rights. What we should do is fight to keep those limits minimal and rare as I have already stated.
Click to expand...

the primary duty of the US Government is to safeguard the rights of the people so, other than the current unconstitutional actions take by government, I fail to see how you concluded that simply creating the government is an inherent limitation on our rights.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the primary duty of the US Government is to safeguard the rights of the people so, other than the current unconstitutional actions take by government, I fail to see how you concluded that simply creating the government is an inherent limitation on our rights.
Click to expand...

Wow we just went full circle
 
floridafan said:
Can you still remember when Republicans favored small government? Not any more!
Click to expand...

In Texas, the anti-abortion laws the Rightys propose will take away girls' and women's freedoms. They may have to prove a miscarriage was not self-abortion. The police can come between a woman and her doctor. They want a woman's health records to be available to the police. How much more invasive can the government get?
 
Nordberg said:
In Texas, the anti-abortion laws the Rightys propose will take away girls' and women's freedoms. They may have to prove a miscarriage was not self-abortion. The police can come between a woman and her doctor. They want a woman's health records to be available to the police. How much more invasive can the government get?
Click to expand...

don't you find it completely hypocritical that you on the left are supposed to be for womens lib and empowerment, but you continue supporting policies that reinforce the idea that they are incapable of saying no to sex????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top