Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
With the number of times you've brought up the prospect of participating in armed revolt against our government (which is fucking scary, by the way, not gonna lie), I'd say that counts as intentional disdain for the constitution.
|
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future securitydeclaration of independence.
limited powers in the constitution assigned to federal government.
second amendment, security of a free state.
I see no disdain for the constitution in reminding or enforcing an overbearing government of its limited powers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
And I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the founding fathers were not a monolithic group, and just as some of them would be outraged by the more progressive policies we face today, others would likely be quite pleased.
|
as I am not displeased with some of those progressive policies. Any policy that reduces the role of government in private lives and increases freedom and liberty is a perfectly acceptable progressive policy. Those founders would have thought the same, by their writings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
There's a big fucking difference between torturing people and providing for their general welf-- oops, I mean health care 
I added more to my post btw, if you care to respond... not that it matters much. |
If you're going to use the general welfare clause as a catch all for allowing the federal government to enact any and every social program man could think of, you're right. It wouldn't matter.