ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto Compared to US LAW

re:
"...Interesting that you should say that. I would refer you to
the constitutions of Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia, and Massachusetts just to name a few. All of those
constitutions required said affirmation. Only until the
14th Amendment destroyed those states' rights(which the
War of Southern Independence was fought over) did such
'tests' as you call them become outlawed. Jefferson himself
in several letters to those of his home state and as noted in
the Anti-Federalist papers recommended that states establish
said church as was predominant in their population...."

You can rant and make all the claims you'd like, but the very
simple facts remain. Any state can pass any charters, legislation
or "constitutions" they'd like, and those states may require all
people in that state to comply. But when those "requirements"
are finally brought before the Supreme Court on a claim of
non-compliance, they must then be found to conform to our
Constitution's mandates, or they must be changed.

A state cannot outlaw freedom of speech. It cannot outlaw
the ownership of firearms. It cannot deny the freedom of the
practicing of a specific religion privately or in congregation.
It cannot deny legal due process. Etc etc etc etc. It can pass
legislation, change it's constitution or attempt to regulate those
very things; and it can force those in that state to comply, until
the matter of conflict between these laws and our Constitution's
mandates are resolved.

I would very strongly suggest you refrain from using Jefferson
as a model of religious promotion in our country. He has denounced
religious practice and the promotion of it many, many times throughout
his era.

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature" .
Thomas Jefferson

"It does me not injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty
gods or not god. Neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Thomas Jefferson

Thanks.

Re:
"...Think hard about this: if some proposed "benefit" or "standard"
really was to the benefit of everyone, why would the government
have to make it compulsory, such that those who disagree and
want no part of it are turned into criminals subject to the force of law?..."

re:
"..Of course, it's possible that you've merely misunderstood the impact
of the Preamble to the Constitution, which a) awards no powers to any
branch of government, b) speaks of a body of general desiderata in
extremely flowery language, c) has been deemed by Constitutional
scholars throughout history to be merely decorative. You wouldn't be
the first....."

re:
"...You're a real rhetorical muscleman, aren't you? Someone
disagrees with you, and you immediately start calling names
and putting words into other people's mouths. You must have
been a real delight in the schoolyard at recess....."

re:
"..Conservatives careless about the direction of America's future? Are
you sure you're on the right discussion board?..."

Let's start with that last one. My comment was:

"...And this continual denouncing of the concept of public schooling;
the concept that all public schools conform to universal standards
of required study to provide each American child with an equal
opportunity to succeed, is ludicrous. It serves only to give
"conservatives" the appearance of being self-serving and
careless of concern for this Nation's future....."

So much for the bullying and putting words in mouths, ehh?

Your comment that the preamble is to be ignored [although echoed in
article 6], is...well... downright humorous. I won't bother arguing with
anyone that attempts to parse our Constitution to fit their specific
needs. I have to argue with the far left daily over that very presumption;
I come here to relax.

Your comment that there should be no need to use force to insure
compliance to law if that law is a fair one, is equally as humorous.

The laws of this Nation are compulsory, until changed. We live
by the law and when we disagree about it's validity, we take the
course of action to resolve it, we do not merely ignore that law or
disobey it at whim. My far left friends suggest the latter approach,
as do those we incarcerate.

You are either very Naive, or being very disingenuous in argument.

I'm truly sorry to see that, you sound like an otherwise well educated individual.

Thanks.

You don't seem to be able to control your tendency to quote others as having said things they didn't say. I'd take that up with a professional, if I were you. At no time did I say that "that there should be no need to use force to insure compliance to law." (your words)

Law is a very simple matter: it's a statement of what justifications will be used to unleash the force of the State. Legislation -- the process by which law is made -- varies from place to place, but here in the United States it's supposed to be bounded by Constitutional grants of power and the rights of the individual. No legislature is supposed to pass laws that exceed its Constitutional powers, or that invade, nullify, or infringe any man's rights.

The whole "general welfare" or "universal benefit" idea you've been trumpeting is an attempt to circumvent those protections. It's been used that way for thousands of years, it will likely be used for thousands more, and it will never amount to anything else. It's the argument for activist government, a State that decides "what's good for you" and them rams it down your throat. It's the argument of the social engineers, the Left, the Marxists and fascists.

Let's imagine for a moment that someone could prove, by incontrovertible means, that everyone would benefit from the execution of all Muslims. Well, everyone who was left, that is. Would that make it acceptable for any legislature to pass a law decreeing their execution? I recall that the Nazis did something along those lines. They had quite a popular support base, too.

Or how about this one: Since essentially all violent crime and crime against property is committed by males between the ages of 14 and 40, why not pass a law that deeds $100 billion a year to a study of how to pre-identify potential criminals in those age ranges, so that they can be incarcerated and reeducated before they commit their offenses against the rest of us? I mean, if it worked, it would solve the crime problem forever, wouldn't it? No criminals ===> no crime! Of course, the young men thus identified and incarcerated for psychological reprogramming wouldn't actually have done anything yet, nor could we prove that they ever would, but that's just a detail, a mere blot on this otherwise admirable "universal benefit."

Still with me? Then try this: How about a law that steals some modest amount of everyone's income, to confer universal education on the children of the nation? Amazing! Buying education for one's children! Who'd have thought of it? Oh, only everyone who's lived since the birth of Christ, but we can pass over that for now. And as to the actual "education" aspects of it, it turns out that there's no way to guarantee that. All the State can really do is expropriate us and turn the proceeds over to "educators," who are thereafter indemnified against any consequences of their decisions and actions. Meanwhile, parents who could have bought their children a real education, using their market power to see to it that the school they chose delivered the goods, are deprived of some thousands of dollars per year for government-run schools that indoctrinate the young in political correctness and foster every kind of vice and crime.

The State is an instrument of coercion. Coercion is only good for a very few legitimate things, and all of them have to do with the pursuit, apprehension, and punishment of real criminals: those who have invaded our lives, liberties, or properties. Quoth Frederic Bastiat:

You say, "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning that shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by the government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder, violating liberty and property. [from The Law, 1850.]

That's a sentence of death for the "universal benefit" notion of education... especially in light of the colossal failures of government-run schools.

Finally, we have the following:

You are either very Naive, or being very disingenuous in argument.
I'm truly sorry to see that, you sound like an otherwise well educated individual.

Too late, Bubba. Your colors are already on display.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

Article XIX, Sec. 1, of the Arkansas constitution: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

Article 37 of Maryland's constitution provides that "no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of Almighty God" (emphasis added).

Article I, Sec. 4, of Pennsylvania's constitution is more insidious: "No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth

But when those "requirements" are finally brought before the Supreme Court on a claim of non-compliance, they must then be found to conform to our Constitution's mandates, or they must be changed

And you sir can rant all you want but BEFORE the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was passed, these requirements stood as the standard to hold public office. As a matter of fact,the Arkansas anti-atheist provision survived a federal court challenge as recently as 1982. Only Maryland's provision has been explicitly overturned by the Supreme Court, at that was in 1961. The issue was never raised in federal courts before 1865 because it was understood the states had the right to make these decisions. If your argument held true then the writers of the state constitution would not have put them in there time and time again knowing that they would be overturned by federal courts. Ah, but they weren't were they? Not until the passage of your 14th Amendment.

Once an Amendment is passed, it is as much of our Constitution than the original script, and is to be assumed as valid. [see amendment 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 etc]

So I guess you agree with the 16th and 17th Amendments just fine, both of which destroyed the last vestiges of the Republic and the ideals of the Founders in writing said document? The 17th Amendment didn't just change the Constitution, it destroyed what was left of it after the 16th president trampled over it. It turned a Federal Republic into a true democracy, something the Founders never had in mind. Oh, but it is as valid as the original script. < /sarcasm> What about Prohibition? That was an Amendment but overturned less than two decades later. If your argument holds true, then we wouldn't have alcohol. But it was overturned because in reality it was just another fine example of the federal government at work, acting without thinking

But to claim that "public schooling", "the food and drug industry", or other matters of concern [environmental] that effect our entire Nation's welfare in it's whole, should be exempted from control; that it is "socialistic" to put any control upon it, is sheer folly.

Here are a few quotes from James Madison on this subject. The first is from The Federalist, #41, and concerns the general welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8, which echos the general welfare clause in the preamble:

For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceeding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effects than to confound and mislead is an absurdity...

This one is from a Congressional debate in 1792:

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the hightest object of state legislation down to the minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress...

These quotes show that Madison saw the Constitution's statements about the general welfare as general and subject to the enumeration of powers. He specifically rules out federal involvement in education along with a lot of other things that lots of people view as being good for the general welfare of the Union. I assume the other Framers felt similarly.

You have gone off into so many tangents, the topic of argument
has become lost among them. I don't wish to follow your trail of debris.

However, your comment:

"..At no time did I say that "that there should be no need to
use force to insure compliance to law."

Let's read your original comment again:

"..Think hard about this: if some proposed "benefit" or "standard"
really was to the benefit of everyone, why would the government
have to make it compulsory, such that those who disagree and want
no part of it are turned into criminals subject to the force of law?..."

Now, I just had my wife read that [she's my best critic, next to myself],
to see if I had misinterpreted something.

My understanding of what you were saying was validated. You are
suggesting that if an act will benefit all, there should be no need of
any government body making such an act mandatory; or enforcing
the act, or threatening penalty to those that refuse to comply.

Or simply: "..there should be no need to use force to insure
compliance to law..."

Poppycock; dribble and overzealous mental gymnastics. None of
what can possibly give value to your assumptions.

There is too, too much government involvement into private lives
and industry. There is too, too much regulation for the sake of
regulation and for the fees they produce [hidden taxation]. The
tax and spend democrats are responsible for that and I abhor
their quest.

However, that does not mean I agree that all government sponsored
programs should be dissolved and eradicated. There are many
programs that are best left to government control.

Unlike private organizations that can run away with their power,
or the Nation's funds and offer no simple recourse to citizens,
our government is elected and can fall to the demands of the public.

It is for that reason the public must always be aware of what their
elected officials are doing and react at the polls accordingly. The
public is responsible, through their elected officials, to direct the
government power to the direction they wish, as a majority.

Those that are disgusted with a certain public school's policy
should address that issue and force a change, not demand
that the government get out of the business and turn it over
to private enterprise.

It took years and years to stop Monsanto's careless attitude
towards public health [regarding asbestos]. They now make
pharmaceuticals [one of which is falling under fire for related
deaths]. So much for a private entity to do what is right.

How many years would it take to stop Nader's Raiders, if they
were in charge of environmental control as a private entity?

So much for relying on private entity to provide sensible,
sound and honest course regarding this Nation's well being.

One concept you and those like you continue to surf over:

We are the government; Each of us, are a small piece of it.

Many forget that and continue to perpetuate the illusion that
the citizens are separate from the government; that there are
two sides: The Government and The Citizens

There are no two sides; there is one. America. We are our
own government. We elect, we demote, we censure, we
impeach and we create.

And when things aren't going as planned, we should assume the
responsibility to correct the situation, not use some liberalists'
reasoning that it's not our fault; blame the "other guy".

To collect a few dollars from each citizen that can afford it,
and provide public schooling to all citizens; to use a few dollars
to insure the food we eat is safe and pure; to use a few to insure
no corporation will be allowed to ruin our Nation's resources,
is not Communistic or Socialistic. It's common sense.

If our government has gotten out of hand, it's due to our own
inattention; it's due to our own careless and lethargic attitude
concerning governmental issues.

Your suggestion that all that's bad in our society is a result of
liberal's desires to control, is ludicrous. You are as much in
denial; as much refusing to take responsibility as those very
liberals you denounce. You are as much assigning blame
as they are.

Somewhere between the "liberal" agenda of a more socialistic
society, and the "conservative" agenda of "every man for himself",
is the true intent of our forefathers.

I will hold to the thought and conviction, that they desired our
Nation to protect and provide for all; that they wanted us to
to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity..... And do so by order of our Constitution.

Ahhh, but quoting from the preamble just doesn't suit you,
does it.

Thanks.

re:

"...So I guess you agree with the 16th and 17th Amendments just fine, both of which destroyed the last vestiges of the Republic and the ideals of the Founders in writing said document? The 17th Amendment didn't just change the Constitution, it destroyed what was left of it after the 16th president trampled over it. It turned a Federal Republic into a true democracy, something the Founders never had in mind. Oh, but it is as valid as the original script.
< /sarcasm> What about Prohibition? That was an Amendment but overturned less than two decades later. If your argument holds true, then we wouldn't have alcohol. But it was overturned because in reality it was just another fine example of the federal
government at work, acting without thinking....."

I read your post three times. And assuming you are claiming
that "amendments to our Constitution" are not valid and can be
[and should be] revoked at whim, how will you feel when the
democrats move to reverse Amendment #2, or the Republicans
move to reverse amendment #5?

Amendments are as much of our Constitutional mandate as the
original document. Each amendment must be honored as law until
the day it is reversed by amendment. And neither should be done
carelessly. Our Constitution is our backbone; it does not have a
life of it's own; it should not change to suit times and conditions.
Time and conditions of society change constantly; they are fluid
and non-committal.

It was through neglect, if we allowed alleged flawed amendments
to pass. You argue that they should be ignored or denounced, but
the only correct action, is to work for reversal. Are you willing to
do that work? Or do you prefer to simply complain?

But to claim that "public schooling", "the food and drug industry", or other matters of concern [environmental] that effect our entire Nation's welfare in it's whole, should be exempted from control; that it is "socialistic" to put any control upon it, is sheer folly.

Underwriters laboratory is a good example of capitalistic success where government fails.

Politicians and bureaucrats aren't particularly smart. Far from it. fporretto, here's a Bastiat quote that, IMO, identifies the problem.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind.
"They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority." -- Frederick Bastiat, The Law (1850)

Value Destroyers versus Value Producers

If civilization had to chose between business/science and government/bureaucracy, eliminating the other, which is the better choice?

The first thing civilization must have is business/science. It's what the family needs so that its members can live creative, productive, happy lives. Business/science can survive, even thrive without government/bureaucracy.
Government/bureaucracy cannot survive without business/science. In general, business/science and family is the host and government/bureaucracy is a parasite.
Aside from that, keep valid government services that protect individual rights and property. Military defense, FBI, CIA, police and courts. With the rest of government striped away those few valid services would be several fold more efficient and effective than they are today.

I propose to not abide by the notion of do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Instead, leave people alone to create their life as they see fit so long as they do not initiate force, fraud or coercion.

When a person initiates force the victim and his or her agent (police or Samaritan) may exercise their highest moral right -- the right of self-defense and physical survival. And that ought to be all that a person sticks their nose into another person's business unless invited to associate with another person. Too many busybodies (basically harmless unless the busybody is one of the parasitical elite) telling other people how to live their lives.

Principle One: No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual.
Principle Two: Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Principle One.
Principle Three: No exceptions be allowed for Principle One and Two.

All a person need be concerned with is whether they have been a victim and who violated Principle One. Then prove that to a jury.

Thus the ultimate purpose of the jury is to decide if harm has been done to the person claimed to be a victim and to what extent the person has been harmed. All juries would be informed that they have the option of nullification. That is based on the premise of Objective Law also known as The Point Law.

And I believe that working for reversal will be one of the hardest issues especially with the 14th, let alone the 16th and 17th. To do that first is to teach what the Founders actually said, not what we would have wanted them to say. Were they worried about establishment of a theocracy? Well probably not but they did realize the issues that the original colonizers of this land had with England, establishment of one religion.

That being said, only a few of the Founders were Deists, most were active in their local churches and saw the importance of established religion at a state level, as seen by their fellow patriots who were writing the state documents close behind the Federal Constitution. The problem with overturning the 14th Amendment would be in effect to say that the Confederacy won the War, because those 13 Southern states were the only ones who still wanted to follow the ideals of the Founders. Even in their Constitution, Almighty God is credited. So no, I do not want to sit and complain, but I do think it is important to air out the fact that this nation was at one time a Christian nation and to deny it otherwise is to defame not only the Founders but the original document they so established

The Constitution is not a living breathing document meant to 'change with the times'. In the 90 years previous to the War, it had only been amended twice, but in the 136 years hence, it has been changed an additional 14 times. Does that not seem a bit strange to you. The fact that on average of every ten years, the federal government has taken it upon itself to add another power? Think about each amendment and what it did

14th--destruction of states' rights(inherently important in a Federal Republic but not so in a democracy)
16th--levy of federal income tax(that should speak for itself)
17th--popular election of Senators(taking one of the final powers from the state houses and putting it into that all so famous mob 'the people')
18th--Prohibition(not well thought out but fix it anyway, leaping before thought)
21--Repeal of Prohibition(well have to fix it again, but this time it is fixing their own mistake)
23--Assigning electors to DC(Did there really need to be an Amendment to the finest document in the world for this?)
24--Poll tax(section 2 of the 15th would have covered this, again not a reason to add another Amendment)
26--lowering the voting age(not something that needed to be done at Amendment level

2 Amendments in 90 years and 14 in 136 years. Little wopsided don't you think? What caused that change

"But to claim that "public schooling", "the food and drug industry", or other matters of concern [environmental] that effect our entire Nation's welfare in it's whole, should be exempted from control; that it is "socialistic" to put any control upon it, is sheer folly."

Section 8. Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have the power 1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States;

Thus, we have established that the Congress has the constitutional power "to put any control upon it," as you say.

Agreed.

However, this "control upon it" still has to conform to the Bill of Rights. And it is the this lack of conformity that makes the "control upon it," or regulations, socialistic.

Most if not all enviromental regulations violate the 5th amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

Public school and food/drug regulatins violate the 5th amendment, as described above and the 9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You and all citizens have the inherent, God-given right to educate their children as they see fit, with their tax money, without government interference. That is the right the 9th amendment protects.

It is this disregard for our consitutionally protected rights by our federal government that is driving many citizens crazy.

And your blind support of it, as well as many others, only emboldens federal legislators to continue denying and disparaging our unenemerated rights.

re:
"..These quotes show that Madison saw the Constitution's statements
about the general welfare as general and subject to the enumeration
of powers. He specifically rules out federal involvement in education
along with a lot of other things that lots of people view as being good
for the general welfare of the Union. I assume the other Framers felt
similarly....."

I agree, but we are not discussing the running of public education by
federal officers or the funding of same. The Federal government may
indeed be reimbursing states in some amount, but it is the states that
do the taxation and the dispensing of public funds to pay for public
services, including education.

The federal government should make certain Constitutional rights
are upheld inside those public establishments [as well as all others]
and I sincerely doubt Mr. Madison was considering otherwise when
he made those comments.

There is a vast difference between demanding that federal [Constitutional]
guidelines are followed and the actual operation of services. Ie: Any
state may offer a public service of any nature, provided by tariffs, fees,
taxation or contribution, but those services cannot be denied to any
specific group prejudicially, or granted to any group prejudicially. To
do so would be unconstitutional and reason for federal intervention.

I am against this new federal marshal plan regarding airport/airline
security, as well as federal subsidy to airlines for their decline in business.
But I am not against any federal guidelines regarding the type and
quality of security needed to keep our skies safe and our terrestrial
citizenry safe from falling aircraft.

I believe anything that crosses a state line falls to federal jurisdiction,
as well as anything that arrives from or departs for, foreign soil. That
does not mean the federal government should run the business, but only
set the guidelines. Would Madison argue otherwise?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.