We allow children to die every day in car wrecks. We allow children every day to die in swimming pools. We allow children, every day, to get hurt playing sports.

# In 2005, there were 3,582 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 710 people died, from drowning and other causes, in boating-related incidents.1, 2
# More than one in four fatal drowning victims are children 14 and younger.¹ For every child who dies from drowning, another four received emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1

Water-Related Injuries Facts - NCIPC

Motor vehicle injuries are the greatest public health problem facing children today. In fact, they are the leading cause of death among children in the United States.

Each year in the United States, emergency departments treat more than 200,000 children ages 14 and younger for playground-related injuries.

Fireworks-Related Injuries, Facts-NCIPC

Looks like we should ban children from riding in automobiles, ban them from swimming, ban them from using fireworks and ban them from playgrounds, all to keep them safe.

With freedom comes risk. If you do not want risk, then move somewhere where there is no risk and set up your utopian, socialist society there. Of course all you will accomplish is to give up every scrap of freedom in order to live under the illusion of safety.

You don't want to see children go hungry? What about children who become obese because their pathetic parents don't give a crap about them? I don't want to see kids go through the teasing and bullying and laughter, that is cruel, so I think we should take all those children away from their parents and put them somewhere they can be safe from over eating. Where does it end?

Where does it end?

Freedom means risks.

Freedom means acceptable risk.

We dont allow kids to do much of anything except eat learn and play so we dont 'allow' kids to do drown or get killed in car crashes. At least I dont for my daughter - do you allow yours to drown or crash?

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

We deduce their desires from the federalist papers, convention notes, etc as well, not just the word on paper. But then of course they specifically wrote in a way to change the document. If you think its vague, all you have to go is get 2/3 of the states to agree with you and, wala! Of course, the point was not to get it changed all the time, because then you get stupid stuff in there, much like California and my own states constitution. The constitution was designed to protect specific rights, and limit govt. And to put anything else in the hands of individuals and states.

Personally, I find your comments scary.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

To determine "the intent of the framers," we must also look at the context in which the Constitutional Convention took place--the ineffectiveness of the Confederation form of government, the frightening experience of "Shay's Rebellion," the meeting of leading men from five states at Mount Vernon in 1786 in reaction to that rebellion, the Annapolis Convention later that same year, and finally at the Constitutional Convention itself. You need to know what sort of problems they had encountered and what they were trying to fix in order to understand their motives, AND to understand why the new Constitution was so different from anything that had gone before it. You may find another poster's comments "scary," but I can assure you that many leading citizens of the thirteen states of the Confederation found the Constitution itself VERY "scary."

the constitution was designed to represent the will of the people. the opening line of the constitution implies the right of we the people to demolish the constitution when we see fit. i am no slave to the political theories of jefferson or franklin, as they were just john locke wannabes anyway.

it really wouldn't be a big deal.

__________________

The Constitution was designed to expand and strengthen the central government, not to limit it. The central government was a lot more limited under the Articles of Confederation, so if the goal were to limit it nothing needed to be done. This is not to say there are no limits, only that the idea that the primary focus of the Constitution is to limit the central government is completely backwards.

This is true, but what was delegated to the federal government included an awful lot, so to say that "everything else" is the province of the states or the people isn't saying as much as you suppose.

jviehe, do you get tired of TSG and I shattering your arguments?

__________________

To demolish it either through abolishing it altogether which means nothing in it would apply, no federal govt, no taxes, nothing in this country that has derived its power from the constitution. Or to modify it through amendment. It was not designed for us to ignore it when the will of the people decided they wanted to, and then use it when it suited us.

Your comment was that you dont think it applies to modern day anymore, so the federal govt should just do whatever it wants. Thats called anarchy, having no system of law or just guiding the actions of power.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

TSG is on ignore, so I have no clue if he is "shattering my arguments". I dont think you are doing so either, so im not tired of something not happening no. Did you have something constructive to contribute, or should we just quit now? I have plenty of room for you on my ignore list as well.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Actually, it's quite possibly worse that than. It's not anarchy, it's tyranny and absolute tyranny at that. It vests absolute power in government (as government can do whatever it wants) and violates the very principles this nation was founded on. Under that, what stops the government from establishing itself as a totalitarian dictatorship? I agree with you, jviehe, it's a dangerous scenario.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

False argument. Just because the government was once expanded does not mean that it should always be expanded. Saying so is a false belief. Furthermore, the founders believed that the government should have the power it needs but no more than what it needs. The Articles of Confederation did not grant it what it needed but the founders were very cautious about how much power they gave the federal government and limited it with this amendment.

No it doesn't. Consider:

The man called the "Father of the Constitution" states that the federal governments powers are "few and defined". Your argument flies smack in the face of his and, frankly, I'm inclined to believe him.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

That's not a false argument, it's a straw man.

So why did you say it? I certainly didn't.

Hey, so do I. So what are we arguing about?

I've already addressed this, but I guess I will again.

James Madison deserves the title "father of the Constiution" for two reasons. One, he was one of the chief individuals, along with Alexander Hamilton, calling for the convention that drafted the document. And two, his abilities as a diplomat and politician allowed the compromises that let the competing interests of big and small states, south and north, agrarian and commercial interests, to be reconciled and kept the union together.

Praiseworthy as these things are, they do not mean that we should take Madison's intepretation as authorative, particularly in view of his own partisan interest which affected that interpretation. There were two conflicting interests in pre-Civil War American politics. There were those who preferred an agrarian America, and represented the interests of the south and rural dwellers, and those who preferred a commercial and industrial America, and represented the interests of the northeast and urban dwellers. These competing interests found representation respectively in the Democratic-Republican (later Democratic) Party, to which Madison belonged, and the Federalst, Whig, and Republican parties. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams may be taken as voices for the commercial/industrial side of the debate, as much as Madison and Jefferson may be taken as voices for the agrarian/rural side, and their interpretation of the Constitution was very different. Yet all of them were "Founding Fathers." (George Washington was a moderate, but leaned towards the Federalist side.)

So the fact that Madison interpreted the Constitution in one particular way, while interesting, holds no great intellectual authority over us, especially since the America he represented no longer exists.

__________________
Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

Guess who?

Likewise, I posted this in the other thread. Madisons own words:


The Avalon Project : Federalist No 41

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

The person MOST responsible for the convening of the Constitutional Convention was George Washington. Disturbed by the events in Massachusetts known as Shays Rebellion, frustrated because the Confederation had no power to intervene, upset because men who had loyally served him and their country during the Revolution had been ill-treated, Washington asked a number of his influential friends to meet with him, informally, in 1786. There were men from five states at that gathering. They agreed that something needed to be done, and proposed a meeting of representatives from all the states, to be held at Annapolis that fall. Seven states sent delegates to the Annapolis Convention--not enough to work out an effective solution. So the Annapolis Convention called for yet another meeting to be held in Philadelphia the following May. That May, men from twelve states showed up in Philadelphia, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Important compromises were needed to secure the agreement of delegates from all the states. The principal differences were between the larger and smaller states. There were five big states--Virginia, which was HUGE in comparison with the rest, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. The rest were much smaller, but vital to the overall objective. It was not Madison who came up with the mechanisms of compromise. The men who played that role were Roger Sherman of Connecticut, and James Dickenson and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania.