Capitalism and the Constitution

[rebeccajo 14]

It seems that many of the people who are attending congressional town hall meetings these days have some sort of problem with the idea that our current president is not adhering to the U.S. Constitution. They seem to connect this idea with their bogeyman, socialism. What is it that makes them think that the Constitution has anything to do with economics? Where was their outrage about the sanctity of the Constitution when G.W. Bush reportedly said that the Constitution was "just a piece of paper," to which he seemed to think he was not bound?

The Constitution was written to establish the organization of our system of government into three separate and equal branches of government. The Bill of Rights was added primarily to protect citizens from the government. Later amendments were added to address issues of the time, including giving black men, women and 18-year-olds the right to vote, presidential debility, electing senators, income tax, electoral college and 10 others. The only amendment which had to be repealed, Prohibition, was an amendment which, in essence, had only to do with controlling the behavior of citizens -- not the behavior of government.

There is not one word in the Constitution which protects capitalism from socialism or any other economic system. The United States Congress has the right to make law. The Executive branch has the obligation to enforce the law. The Judicial branch has the authority to decide whether that law is in concordance with the Constitution. That's pretty much it, folks. If the Congress passes a law restructuring the way we do health care in this country, and any part of it is deemed to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it will be struck down.

It seems some of us have forgotten that one of the reasons our Founding Fathers put this amazing document together was, as stated in the Preamble, to "insure domestic tranquility." They believed in us. They believed we were capable of rational, thoughtful, informed discussion. Let's try not to let them down.

http://www.news-leader.com/article/2009081...tect+capitalism

Edited August 25, 2009 by rebeccajo

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The author doesn't know all that much about the historical framework of the US Constitution, and has sought to cloak their ignorance in the pretense that those who oppose Barry's policies are bedeviled by myths and misconceptions. She couldn't be more wrong, nor could anyone who believes she has a point.

Economic freedoms are part and parcel of the foundation of the rights protected in the Constitution. Any credible economist or historian aware of the influence of Adams Smith's Wealth of Nations, for example, on the founding fathers' thinking would tell her that. The Constitution carried forward the belief in limited government and individual autonomy already embodied in preceding expressions of political and economic ideals discussed in the Federalist Papers. The framers, land owners and producers all, sought to protect the concept of private property rights, even to the point of limiting the vote to land owners, believing that their investment in the new nation would motivate them positively toward entrepreneuralism.

The document itself is about more than its words; the history, precedents and intent that formed it have their own weight to consider. The framers did intend to protect a way of life from totalitarianism, monopoly, monarchy, and, yes, socialism. The Constitution was written from the concept that the people controlled the government and had the authority to protect themseves from it. The Constitution does not merely enumerate the duties and responsibilities of each executive branch, it also sets limits on its authority over the states and sets God-given rights for inviolate individual freedoms.

It is our nation's primary source of law and it is all about boundaries.

The reason why I and many others are alarmed not only by the president's overreaching into the operations of individual industries and social manipulation intended to create acceptance of this overreaching, is that his a former Constitutional attorney, and he knows that he is overreaching. We are also alarmed that there are so few willing to stand up to those who seek to gain dictatorial power at the expense of individual rights and protections.

It is clear that this author does not take into consideration the fact that the government produces nothing, but, in reality, relies on the fruits of the productive profit sector, to fuel its own consumption. She cannot mention that the taxes the goverment levies and collects would not be possible under an economic system, such as socialism, that does not encourage market economics, innovation and profit. That she omits this fact is a tacit admission that its mention would destroy her already weak argument.

Unfortunately, too many citizens have little institutional knowledge of the US Constitution and have been conditioned to believe that it is nothing more than an org chart, as the author infers. She also states that Bush may have believed that he was not bound by this founding document, but is dismissive of the idea that Obama should be bound by it, thereby showing her to be as as much of a strict partisan who agrees with Obama, but not with Bush, so what Obama does is ok with her. However, this makes her as complecit to the incremental chipping away of freedoms under this administration as any Bush sychopahnt was to his errors.

The author betrays her own argument when she asks "What is it that makes them think that the Constitution has anything to do with economics?" One could respond in kind, What is it that makes you think that the Constitution has anything to do with health care, automobile production, executive bonuses, corporate jets, global warming, and other periperal issues that this administration has deeply involved itself with. She does not and cannot do that without exposing further her own political biases.

For the sake of our independence and continutity, our loyalty must be to the protection and implementation to our primary source of law, not to any administration or ideological mythology. Our sensitivities must not be limited in a way that allows us to pardon or comply with attempts by any faction to mute or diminish its authority.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

[dalegg 143]

There is not one word in the Constitution which protects capitalism from socialism or any other economic system.

I swear I would pay money to watch any Democratic politician use this line of reasoning in response to accusations of socialism. I hope Nancy Pelosi puts this very sentence in her re-election ads.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The author doesn't know all that much about the historical framework of the US Constitution, and has sought to cloak their ignorance in the pretense that those who oppose Barry's policies are bedeviled by myths and misconceptions. She couldn't be more wrong, nor could anyone who believes she has a point.

Economic freedoms are part and parcel of the foundation of the rights protected in the Constitution. Any credible economist or historian aware of the influence of Adams Smith's Wealth of Nations, for example, on the founding fathers' thinking would tell her that. The Constitution carried forward the belief in limited government and individual autonomy already embodied in preceding expressions of political and economic ideals discussed in the Federalist Papers. The framers, land owners and producers all, sought to protect the concept of private property rights, even to the point of limiting the vote to land owners, believing that their investment in the new nation would motivate them positively toward entrepreneuralism.

The document itself is about more than its words; the history, precedents and intent that formed it have their own weight to consider. The framers did intend to protect a way of life from totalitarianism, monopoly, monarchy, and, yes, socialism. The Constitution was written from the concept that the people controlled the government and had the authority to protect themseves from it. The Constitution does not merely enumerate the duties and responsibilities of each executive branch, it also sets limits on its authority over the states and sets God-given rights for inviolate individual freedoms.

It is our nation's primary source of law and it is all about boundaries.

The reason why I and many others are alarmed not only by the president's overreaching into the operations of individual industries and social manipulation intended to create acceptance of this overreaching, is that his a former Constitutional attorney, and he knows that he is overreaching. We are also alarmed that there are so few willing to stand up to those who seek to gain dictatorial power at the expense of individual rights and protections.

It is clear that this author does not take into consideration the fact that the government produces nothing, but, in reality, relies on the fruits of the productive profit sector, to fuel its own consumption. She cannot mention that the taxes the goverment levies and collects would not be possible under an economic system, such as socialism, that does not encourage market economics, innovation and profit. That she omits this fact is a tacit admission that its mention would destroy her already weak argument.

Unfortunately, too many citizens have little institutional knowledge of the US Constitution and have been conditioned to believe that it is nothing more than an org chart, as the author infers. She also states that Bush may have believed that he was not bound by this founding document, but is dismissive of the idea that Obama should be bound by it, thereby showing her to be as as much of a strict partisan who agrees with Obama, but not with Bush, so what Obama does is ok with her. However, this makes her as complecit to the incremental chipping away of freedoms under this administration as any Bush sychopahnt was to his errors.

The author betrays her own argument when she asks "What is it that makes them think that the Constitution has anything to do with economics?" One could respond in kind, What is it that makes you think that the Constitution has anything to do with health care, automobile production, executive bonuses, corporate jets, global warming, and other periperal issues that this administration has deeply involved itself with. She does not and cannot do that without exposing further her own political biases.

For the sake of our independence and continutity, our loyalty must be to the protection and implementation to our primary source of law, not to any administration or ideological mythology. Our sensitivities must not be limited in a way that allows us to pardon or comply with attempts by any faction to mute or diminish its authority.

Next time don't run a loser...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The author doesn't know all that much about the historical framework of the US Constitution, and has sought to cloak their ignorance in the pretense that those who oppose Barry's policies are bedeviled by myths and misconceptions. She couldn't be more wrong, nor could anyone who believes she has a point.

Economic freedoms are part and parcel of the foundation of the rights protected in the Constitution. Any credible economist or historian aware of the influence of Adams Smith's Wealth of Nations, for example, on the founding fathers' thinking would tell her that. The Constitution carried forward the belief in limited government and individual autonomy already embodied in preceding expressions of political and economic ideals discussed in the Federalist Papers. The framers, land owners and producers all, sought to protect the concept of private property rights, even to the point of limiting the vote to land owners, believing that their investment in the new nation would motivate them positively toward entrepreneuralism.

The document itself is about more than its words; the history, precedents and intent that formed it have their own weight to consider. The framers did intend to protect a way of life from totalitarianism, monopoly, monarchy, and, yes, socialism. The Constitution was written from the concept that the people controlled the government and had the authority to protect themseves from it. The Constitution does not merely enumerate the duties and responsibilities of each executive branch, it also sets limits on its authority over the states and sets God-given rights for inviolate individual freedoms.

It is our nation's primary source of law and it is all about boundaries.

The reason why I and many others are alarmed not only by the president's overreaching into the operations of individual industries and social manipulation intended to create acceptance of this overreaching, is that his a former Constitutional attorney, and he knows that he is overreaching. We are also alarmed that there are so few willing to stand up to those who seek to gain dictatorial power at the expense of individual rights and protections.

It is clear that this author does not take into consideration the fact that the government produces nothing, but, in reality, relies on the fruits of the productive profit sector, to fuel its own consumption. She cannot mention that the taxes the goverment levies and collects would not be possible under an economic system, such as socialism, that does not encourage market economics, innovation and profit. That she omits this fact is a tacit admission that its mention would destroy her already weak argument.

Unfortunately, too many citizens have little institutional knowledge of the US Constitution and have been conditioned to believe that it is nothing more than an org chart, as the author infers. She also states that Bush may have believed that he was not bound by this founding document, but is dismissive of the idea that Obama should be bound by it, thereby showing her to be as as much of a strict partisan who agrees with Obama, but not with Bush, so what Obama does is ok with her. However, this makes her as complecit to the incremental chipping away of freedoms under this administration as any Bush sychopahnt was to his errors.

The author betrays her own argument when she asks "What is it that makes them think that the Constitution has anything to do with economics?" One could respond in kind, What is it that makes you think that the Constitution has anything to do with health care, automobile production, executive bonuses, corporate jets, global warming, and other periperal issues that this administration has deeply involved itself with. She does not and cannot do that without exposing further her own political biases.

For the sake of our independence and continutity, our loyalty must be to the protection and implementation to our primary source of law, not to any administration or ideological mythology. Our sensitivities must not be limited in a way that allows us to pardon or comply with attempts by any faction to mute or diminish its authority.

Next time don't run a loser...

Either way, a loser won.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The author doesn't know all that much about the historical framework of the US Constitution, and has sought to cloak their ignorance in the pretense that those who oppose Barry's policies are bedeviled by myths and misconceptions. She couldn't be more wrong, nor could anyone who believes she has a point.

Economic freedoms are part and parcel of the foundation of the rights protected in the Constitution. Any credible economist or historian aware of the influence of Adams Smith's Wealth of Nations, for example, on the founding fathers' thinking would tell her that. The Constitution carried forward the belief in limited government and individual autonomy already embodied in preceding expressions of political and economic ideals discussed in the Federalist Papers. The framers, land owners and producers all, sought to protect the concept of private property rights, even to the point of limiting the vote to land owners, believing that their investment in the new nation would motivate them positively toward entrepreneuralism.

The document itself is about more than its words; the history, precedents and intent that formed it have their own weight to consider. The framers did intend to protect a way of life from totalitarianism, monopoly, monarchy, and, yes, socialism. The Constitution was written from the concept that the people controlled the government and had the authority to protect themseves from it. The Constitution does not merely enumerate the duties and responsibilities of each executive branch, it also sets limits on its authority over the states and sets God-given rights for inviolate individual freedoms.

It is our nation's primary source of law and it is all about boundaries.

The reason why I and many others are alarmed not only by the president's overreaching into the operations of individual industries and social manipulation intended to create acceptance of this overreaching, is that his a former Constitutional attorney, and he knows that he is overreaching. We are also alarmed that there are so few willing to stand up to those who seek to gain dictatorial power at the expense of individual rights and protections.

It is clear that this author does not take into consideration the fact that the government produces nothing, but, in reality, relies on the fruits of the productive profit sector, to fuel its own consumption. She cannot mention that the taxes the goverment levies and collects would not be possible under an economic system, such as socialism, that does not encourage market economics, innovation and profit. That she omits this fact is a tacit admission that its mention would destroy her already weak argument.

Unfortunately, too many citizens have little institutional knowledge of the US Constitution and have been conditioned to believe that it is nothing more than an org chart, as the author infers. She also states that Bush may have believed that he was not bound by this founding document, but is dismissive of the idea that Obama should be bound by it, thereby showing her to be as as much of a strict partisan who agrees with Obama, but not with Bush, so what Obama does is ok with her. However, this makes her as complecit to the incremental chipping away of freedoms under this administration as any Bush sychopahnt was to his errors.

The author betrays her own argument when she asks "What is it that makes them think that the Constitution has anything to do with economics?" One could respond in kind, What is it that makes you think that the Constitution has anything to do with health care, automobile production, executive bonuses, corporate jets, global warming, and other periperal issues that this administration has deeply involved itself with. She does not and cannot do that without exposing further her own political biases.

For the sake of our independence and continutity, our loyalty must be to the protection and implementation to our primary source of law, not to any administration or ideological mythology. Our sensitivities must not be limited in a way that allows us to pardon or comply with attempts by any faction to mute or diminish its authority.

Next time don't run a loser...

Either way, a loser won.

The hell you say!

[Niels Bohr 72]

Back in the days when Washington was in his second term, Alexander Hamilton was one of the great founders of a capitalist society as well. Hamilton established a centralized money mongering machine back in the days I tell you. In fact, Hamilton urged the Federalists to adopt the new Constitution instead of using the old Articles of Confederation.

[rebeccajo 14]

For those who care and have the time to read, here's a little blip on Alexander Hamilton, who wrote most of the Federalist Papers. The link is from PBS. Readers should note the passages regarding "Federalists" (who supported the Constitution) and "Anti-Federalists" who feared control of a federal government.

Not mentioned in this Article is the fact that Hamilton was not in support of the Constitution being an amendable document - a school of thought which would have seen the Bill of Rights never come to fruition. In defense of that argument though, Hamilton felt leaving out certain rights from such a bill would imply they were not a right at all - an argument we see today as regards a 'right' to health care, or indeed any social program.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/sfeature...onstituion.html

Edited August 25, 2009 by rebeccajo

[NickD 202]

It was fun and interesting in studying the civics test with my wife, the way this country should be. How can you have three branches of government with a yes sir congress to the president and these two branches picking the members of the supreme court?

Anyway find watching MTV a lot more interesting than watching CSPAN. My major decision in life is whether I want a gold ring in my ear or my nose, that is the only thing that is important to me. Hey, what about a tat?

[alienlovechild 75]

Where was their outrage about the sanctity of the Constitution when G.W. Bush reportedly said that the Constitution was "just a piece of paper," to which he seemed to think he was not bound?

Sounds like the usual ####### liberals peddle without any facts to back them up.

"Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"

Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.

A: Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.

The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_...titution_a.html

[The Dude 206]

Where was their outrage about the sanctity of the Constitution when G.W. Bush reportedly said that the Constitution was "just a piece of paper," to which he seemed to think he was not bound?

Sounds like the usual ####### liberals peddle without any facts to back them up.

"Did President Bush call the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?"

Is it true that President Bush called the Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper?" He has never denied it, and it appears that there were several witnesses.

A: Extremely unlikely. The Web site that reported those words has a history of quoting phony sources and retracting bogus stories.

The report that Bush "screamed" those words at Republican congressional leaders in November 2005 is unsubstantiated, to put it charitably.

We judge that the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero. It comes from Capitol Hill Blue, a Web site that has a history of relying on phony sources, retracting stories and apologizing to its readers."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_...titution_a.html

And ironically enough you parroting the same right wing rebuttal points. Even factcheck.org can't repudiate the report of him saying it.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Enuf about Bush. He's no longer president, just a diversion by liberals, including Barry, who have no good explanation for why the positive change he promised isn't happening. Let's stay on track and examine the stance of the guy who's president now.

Barry says the Constution is flawed

The entire content and context of his remarks re law the courts and the Constitution may be found here.

For comic relief, Barry says the Constitution was written 20 centuries ago lol. Where's that dang TOTUS when you need it?

[rebeccajo 14]

Enuf about Bush. He's no longer president, just a diversion by liberals, including Barry, who have no good explanation for why the positive change he promised isn't happening. Let's stay on track and examine the stance of the guy who's president now.

"Staying on track" would be talking about whether or not economic systems are referred to in the Constitution.

[alienlovechild 75]

And ironically enough you parroting the same right wing rebuttal points. Even factcheck.org can't repudiate the report of him saying it.

Oh, I see. Even if Bush didn't say it, he said because you believe it anyway.

I hope your an organ donor so you can contribute something to humanity. In fact, without any detectable brainwave activity you could donate now.

Edited August 26, 2009 by alienlovechild