Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
People who complain about the size of government being too big
1. How do you measure size of government anyway, and how is that indicative of...wait, what should it be indicative of again?
2. How is allegedly "bigger" government necessarily worse?
3. How would "reducing" the "size of government" (however that works) make things better?
2. How is allegedly "bigger" government necessarily worse?
3. How would "reducing" the "size of government" (however that works) make things better?
Comments
2. In the case of the US, it's unlawful. It's also worse because people don't like and don't need the government running so many aspects of their lives.
3. At the very least, it would get the country back in line with the law. It would also let people just go about their business.
-doesn't know the constitution by heart-
See, that's where we disagree. You're a strict constructonist, I'm a loose constructionist.
"If it violates rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution, then
even the state governments are not supposed to be doing it, much less
the federal."
Where does it violate a specifically enumerated right?
Anf if anything, it mandates a complicated system of government-originated checks in place to ensure the rights of various people.
Not to mention that it gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. Which is, almost, any form of commerce that isn't incredibly local.
There's not really much room for disagreement, though. Look at the tenth amendment. If the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to do [x], then it's up to the states or the people to do [x].
Where does it violate a specifically enumerated right?
Seems to me that bigger government is going to be more intrusive by nature - I can think of one way off the top of my head - the thirteenth amendment says that slavery is illegal, which means we shouldn't be paying taxes to fund anything except the military, or we're essentially bound in involuntary servitude toward [public school students, welfare recipients, medicare beneficiaries, take your pick].
Not to mention that it gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce.
The single most-abused clause in the document. "Commerce" does not mean "business." It means "commerce" - as in the act of moving goods from point A to point B. Not things that directly affect commerce. Not things that indirectly affect commerce. The commerce itself. And it doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, either.
The "job" of government has been changing constantly, FWIW.
That depends on your definition of slavery.
"The single most-abused clause in the document. "Commerce" does not mean "business." It means "commerce" - as in the act of moving goods from point A to point B. Not things that directly affect commerce. Not things that indirectly affect commerce. The commerce itself. And it doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, either."
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has set the precedent of Commerce Clause as affecting all business.
Last time I checked, "commerce" referred to basically any for-profit economic activity. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce
You're a strict constructonist, I'm a loose constructionist.
My concerns about big government are more fiscal than constitutional.
* Many countries borrow money to grow government beyond what taxes allow. For several nations (Greece, Spain, possibly Japan, and at the current rate, the U.S. in a few years) are facing a major crisis because public demand has prevented the government from balancing the budget.
* Increasing taxes drives companies to look elsewhere for investment, harming opportunities for private business to explore opportunities to grow the economy and reduce unemployment.
* Increasing regulations creates chaos and confusion for small businesses and individuals trying to get stuff done without having to go through small armies of accountants, lawyers, etc., stifling creativity in the private sector.
From a philisophical point of view, I would argue the question is essentially which is more able to solve the problems facing society - business, which offers more creativity and efficiency driven by competition, or government, which offers ethics and efficiency driven by electing officials? Obviously both are required, but libertarians argue government cannot match the efficiency of business, while authoritarians argue that business cannot be trusted with humanity's future.
What the word denotes now is irrelevant. Based on the intent of the founders, the only logical definition of "interstate commerce" is "the shipment of goods across state lines."
And we can't operate on intent, we can only operate on what's in the document, by your logic. And the document doesn't specify.
The Supreme Court isn't infallible in its interpretations, either.
founders, the only logical definition of "interstate commerce" is "the
shipment of goods across state lines."
...uh...what?
Also, what about the provision of services across state lines?
And it started to define what counted as commerce about twenty years after the constitution was written. The word can't have shifted that much so as to obscure the intent in that time.