quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i'm not at all advocating Hoover's idea, but if you are so quick to pull out the Constitutuional argument how do you reconcile the words of our Founding Fathers: habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” with the idea that our greatest enemy could come from within? EDIT> or what i should say is, how do you even begin to pull the Constitutional argument as a reaction to this? it's absurd if you really consider yourself an originalist.

Um, because suspending Habeas Corpus in a time of neither rebellion or invasion is an OBVIOUS violation of the constitution; the law of the land. Would you like me to argue out of my ass??

quote:

Our greatest enemy is over-sized government? That's seriously what you took away from that article?

Uh, YA...

What was our republic founded for? To escape and provide safe haven from big government...

quote:

i also find arguments that refer to the "founding fathers" to be inherently crap. i mean, i know you're all brought up to revere them and all, but australians would be hard pressed to name our first prime minister, and yet our democracy is still superior to yours. the problem with the whole "founding fathers" reference is that they might have been awesome men for their day, but they werent fucking seers. why we need to refer to them several hundred years later is a little beyond me. ive read but i certainly dont quote plato. there's nothing wrong with paying homage to your heritage, but your constitution was written eons ago, and referring to it when you need to decide what is wrong or right is pretty problematic imo. the UK and australia do not have a constitution in the same vein as the US one, and i think both countries are profoundly better off because of it. let the shitfight begin!!

Um, our constitution was basically the first of its kind anywhere in the world, and from it came a great majority of other nation's own constitutions. It works. And when we have some legal problem, and we have to refer to the constitution, we can get so much more clarification of what the founders meant when they wrote the document. Why just read the document, but have no context to its words?

Why refer to it? Well, I guess I'm say what I said to q5echo... Do you want me to argue out of my ass ??

___________________

Last edited by Krypton on Dec-24-2007 at 22:49

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Uh, YA... What was our republic founded for? To escape and provide safe haven from big government...

I have no idea where you get that stuff from.

First of all, as pertains to the article, do you really think the desire of J. Edgar Hoover to take away rights of habeas corpus under the Cold War is a product of big government? Or is it the product of a man who had monopolized control over a federal agency wanting to enact security measures that went against American principles of liberty and freedom (who, by the way, was unsuccessful)? I fail to see the "dangers of big government" inherent in this article. The suspension of habeas corpus has nothing to do with whether government is big or small, centralized or decentralized. The American government under Lincoln was decidedly smaller, and yet it was suspended then. Was that, too, a product of "big" government? I think you are looking to ascribe whatever you can to the same boogeyman.

And second, the purpose of the republic was not for small government, as you suggest. In fact, Alexander Hamilton (remember him? he wrote half of the Federalist Papers which are where we get our interpretation of the founding fathers' intent regarding the Constitution) labored extensively for a strong federal government headed by a king. Strong, big, centralized government. That was a serious debate that the founding fathers had, so to argue that we declared our independence to set up a small central government from the outset just displays a real unfamiliarity with the founding fathers and their writings.

Third, it really scares me that the people who go on and on about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers know virtually nothing about the debates that they had to produce that document. If you don't know the context, how can you blindly support the principles embodied in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers? If I knew you, I would get you this for Christmas:



And ask specifically that you read the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, including Federalist 84, where Hamilton argues against the Bill of Rights are completely unnecessary. I can't recall which paper argues for the expansion of federal power, but that's in there as well. If you're going to make a Constitutionalist argument, it is ridiculous if you aren't intimately familiar with those documents, which are readily available to anybody at their local Barnes and Noble.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lesbianosaur I have no idea where you get that stuff from. First of all, as pertains to the article, do you really think the desire of J. Edgar Hoover to take away rights of habeas corpus under the Cold War is a product of big government? Or is it the product of a man who had monopolized control over a federal agency wanting to enact security measures that went against American principles of liberty and freedom (who, by the way, was unsuccessful)? I fail to see the "dangers of big government" inherent in this article. The suspension of habeas corpus has nothing to do with whether government is big or small, centralized or decentralized. The American government under Lincoln was decidedly smaller, and yet it was suspended then. Was that, too, a product of "big" government? I think you are looking to ascribe whatever you can to the same boogeyman. And second, the purpose of the republic was not for small government, as you suggest. In fact, Alexander Hamilton (remember him? he wrote half of the Federalist Papers which are where we get our interpretation of the founding fathers' intent regarding the Constitution) labored extensively for a strong federal government headed by a king. Strong, big, centralized government. That was a serious debate that the founding fathers had, so to argue that we declared our independence to set up a small central government from the outset just displays a real unfamiliarity with the founding fathers and their writings. Third, it really scares me that the people who go on and on about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers know virtually nothing about the debates that they had to produce that document. If you don't know the context, how can you blindly support the principles embodied in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers? If I knew you, I would get you this for Christmas: And ask specifically that you read the papers written by Alexander Hamilton, including Federalist 84, where Hamilton argues against the Bill of Rights are completely unnecessary. I can't recall which paper argues for the expansion of federal power, but that's in there as well. If you're going to make a Constitutionalist argument, it is ridiculous if you aren't intimately familiar with those documents, which are readily available to anybody at their local Barnes and Noble.

The big government that comes from excessive taxes and a lack of civil rights. A country such as the US requires a large government, but we need to set limits. Those limits are within the constitution, which is why I go to it every time I encounter something such as the unjustified suspension of Habeas Corpus, or a plan to do so.

I never said our republic was found to start a small government. I said, it was to escape from big government, i.e. excessive king's taxes, lack of civil rights, religious rights, etc.

I know enough about the founding father's philosophy to cite them in debate, but I'll keep an eye out for the book...

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I know enough about the founding father's philosophy to cite them in debate, but I'll keep an eye out for the book...

The other thing is that the founding fathers were hardly a uniform voting block. They argued about the nature and role of government just as much or more than we do today. It really bothers me when people refer to their whims and desires as if they are one somehow holy viewpoint.

___________________