Quote Originally Posted by Thondalar View Post
The point here is the "slippery slope" that I know you think doesn't exist...

I'll break it down real simple-like...

It doesn't matter what the current government allows, or wants, or approves of. The point is control. If you give the government the power to control, you're setting yourself up to follow that to its indeterminable end. When the government you want is in place, that's a good thing for you...when the next government comes along, it's not going to be good for you.

Only by standing closely to our Constitutional Rights...and nothing more, or less...are we able to avoid both extremes. I know we started this whole project hundreds of years before any of us were born, and it's really hard for someone born this late in the project to grasp the global scenario going on when all this took off, or a lot of the reasons why we have the things we have...but it is all there if you actually care enough to spend a little time researching.
It is really hard. Let's ask the author of the Constitution what his explicit thoughts on implied powers are. "It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. ... The whole turn of the [necessary and proper clause] indicates, that it was the intent of the Convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers."

But Mr. Hamilton, it's a slippery slope!! Oh, you explicitly addressed that too? "To be implied in the nature of the federal government, says he, would beget a doctrine so indefinite as to grasp every power. ... To this objection an answer has been already given. ... The affirming that, as incident to sovereign power, Congress may erect a corporation in relation to the collection of their taxes, is no more to affirm that they may do whatever else they please, than the saying that they have a power to regulate trade, would be to affirm that they have a power to regulate religion."
The point I think Tg was trying to make is, the huge Women's Lib/anti-abortion movement wants government out of their lives when telling them they can't have abortions...but wants them IN their lives to tell employers they have to pay for such. On the face that seems like a conflict of interest, and it is. It goes back to what I said before...either you give them control or you don't. Instead of lobbying for new laws that give whatever government more power, start lobbying for limiting power back to the 1800's.
We have only ever enjoyed rights when they are protected by the government. The movement you describe wants their rights protected by the government and wants their rights protected by the government, thus there is no conflict. The active ingredient is not government involvement, but external interference. When that takes the form of laws, they say "keep your laws off my body". When that takes the form of employer discrimination, they say "vive l'Obamacare". The only way there would be a conflict of interest is if the pro-abortion movement demanded that the government forced people to have abortions.
Government isn't a computer. It's not a ground-breaking laser treatment for cancer. At its core, it's based in logic, and nothing more...logic that is timeless. It is one of the few things where new isn't always better. Quit trying to change it and focus more on using it the way it was intended.
The phrase is not "we have discovered these truths via syllogism", the phrase is "we hold these truths to be self-evident". The words therefore and thus never occur in the Constitution. You keep using the word logic, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Our government is explicitly based on premises, not conclusions, which is why it is explicitly based on discarding those premises when we deem them inferior.
Correct. The former should only be necessary in the most dire of circumstances, and the latter should only be necessary never.
This is another difference between you and the framers: they were realists when it comes to government power. This is not because they were any smarter than you, it's merely because they happened to live through a limited federal government and the catastrophic failure that immediately resulted.