Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Why Not Move Then?
Oh. We are playing the wounded soldier card? My family died. I win?
thank you! Don't expect an answer though.
You will not find the exact words free market enterprise in the Constitution. But certain provision were written with free market enterprise in mind.
http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril32.html
I wasn't playing any card. I was simply stating a fact.
And, I am sorry for your loss and I appreciate your family's service to this country.
Dude, having a "free market in mind" is a million times different from being a free market. We have rules and regulations that make us not a strict free market (THANK GOD).
Am I the only one who thinks that these systems come on a sliding scale? We're not free market or socialist - we're something in between. It's stupid to argue "either/or" when we should be arguing "to what extent."
True, and I believe regulation is necessary to some extent. I mean I shouldn't be able to open up a bank in my basement.
Based upon the quotes of the founding father and the following provision of the Constitution it is clear (well I think it is) this country was founded on principles that support and encourage the operation of a free market economy.
Commerce Clause
Article I, Section 8: Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes...
Coinage Clauses
Article 1 Section 8: Congress shall have Power to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; and to provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States...
Article 1 Section 10: Gives Congress this power exclusively by stating that "No State shall...coin money..."
Copyright Clauses
Article 1 Section 8: Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors and exclusive rights to their respective writing and discoveries....
Contract Clauses
Article 1 Section 9" No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed...by congress.
Article 1 Section 10: No state shall....pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligations of contracts.
Export Clauses
Article 1 Section 9: No tax shall be laid on articles exported from state...
Article 1 Section 10: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports...
I might have missed some, but these are the principles of the Constitution which have historically supported a free market economy. And yes, it does not contain the words free market but unlike the Constitution of the People's Republic of China it does not include the word socialism either.
so, do you not know the definition of the word interpretation? You just went on and on how you don't interpret anything, and then come up with this? If something is not explicitly written then your idea of what it means is...are you ready for it?...an interpretation!!!!!
Um, yes I am familiar with the word interpretation. However, what I was saying is it isn't MY interpretation. The Constitution has generally been accepted to be "interpreted" as supporting a free market economy for the past 200 years.
But you said earlier that you don't want anyone to interpret the Constitution because it stands on its own merits.
How do you feel about the idea of the right to privacy in the Constitution?
If you don't like the direction this country is heading, why don't YOU move?
edited to be more serious: I grew up in a pretty purple state and moved to California partially to be somewhere progressive and awesome and haven't regretted it. That's one great thing about this country. There are states for education progressives and states for Rednecks!
She started another thread to answer that question, which was kind of pointless since it turns out that her answer is basically the same as everyone else's.
It would be weird if socialism was in the constitution because the term didn't exist until the 1800's. I don't really see your point?
I think you may have a better time thinking outside the box if you didn't automatically assume free market=good, socialism=bad. I feel like you're trying to imply something by the constitution referring to the free market, but I just fail to see your point. Of course the US should have free market influences, but that does not preclude socialist influences either.
They also had in mind an economic system based on slavery, so...
The right to privacy is not a part of the Constitution, at least not in specific words. I believe the closest thing to a right to privacy is the search and seizure section. Or Article 9 which basically states that just because a certain right isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it is nonexistent.
So you agree with the basis of Roe v Wade, which is essentially that even though the words "right to privacy" are not explicitly used in the Constitution, that this right does exist?
Didn't we have this discussion the other day? I personally don't believe in abortion but I am not screaming for the supreme court to overturn Roe v Wade.
I guess it depends on your definition of socialism, it can mean so many different things. What I most familiar with is Anthony Gidden's definition of socialism, "Socialism is the pursuit of ideas of social cooperation, universal welfare, and equality - ideas brought together by a condemnation of the evils and injustices of capitalism".
I believe in capitalism, free market enterprise and individual liberty. I feel when you universalize certain things autonomy is lost. Democratic socialism as is seen in Europe doesn't foster entrepreneurship and can create government dependence. I don't want to lose the American entrepreneurial spirit, I don't want to be dependent on the government and I don't want the government telling me what I can and cannot do.
No, it doesn't exist implicitly in the Constitution.
Article 9 states that just because a certain right isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it is nonexistent. That is the closest thing that speaks to it.
It is the Supreme Court which has ruled there exist a Right to Privacy inherent to the Constitution.
Yes, I'm aware that the concept of a constitutional right to privacy came from the Supreme Court, which is why I mentioned Roe v Wade.
I'm just trying to get a grasp of your viewpoint, since you seem to contradict yourself quite a bit. You seem to be saying:
1) even though the words "free market" are not actually used in the Constitution, we can rely on previous interpretations of the Constitution to assume that the United States was meant to be a free market system.
2) the words "right to privacy" aren't used in the Constitution, but it has been interpreted to include a right to privacy, but we shouldn't take that to mean that a right to privacy exists.
If I'm missing something here, please let me know, because I am really confused.
Can you give me some examples of things that governments in European countries tell people they can and cannot do?
I don't know why you are confused. I believe that just because the words free market are not used in the Constitution that our founders believed in a free market society.
Even though the words right to privacy aren't used in the constitution, we are entitled to a right to privacy based on Supreme Court rulings.
What is confusing about that?
Yes, I did have to obtain a license from my county in order to get married. Isn't that normal?
You claimed that the Constitution does not need to be interpreted because it stands on its own merits, but then you claimed that we are a free market society because of the way certain provisions of the constitution have been interpreted, and now you're claiming that we do have a right to privacy based on the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution. I was just trying to clear up the discrepancy. I understand now- you do believe that understanding what the Constitution means requires interpretation, so you must have misspoken earlier. Thanks for your patience with me!
It is confusing because you said implicitly that you don't believe in interpreting the constitution, but then point to all sorts of interpretations that you believe in. It's contradictory.
Sorry if I confused you...perhaps I should have clarified. Supreme Court Justices obviously will interpret the Constitution...that's their job.
I guess what I was saying is that people who disagree with the Constitution and want to re-interpret it in a different way is what I take issue with. They are more than welcome to question anything they wish..we are a free thinking society. I just happen to believe in the historical context of the Constitution and the amendments over the years.