I have been involved in a discussion about the constitution and I think that there is a basic question we all have to answer; is the Constitution a limiting document or a living document?
That basic question can resolve many of our concerns and questions.
I think that the Constitution is a limiting document. I believe that the framers of Constitution want ed to limit the governments ability to control our lives.
You must remember that we were rejecting the monarchy of Europe and specifically England. Each State wanted to insure that they would have rights that were clearly defined by Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Any one who has been a parent has known how children try to constantly stretch the boundaries of their lives and test the rules we put in force for them.
As citizens we have done the same thing, we have constantly tried to expand the role government.
Well now we have allowed ourselves to grant over 50% of the population the right to decisions about how the government spends money with out having to contribute a penny.
10% of the population pays 70% of the taxes. the majority seems to want that 10% to pay more.
My question is how much more and when is enough enough?
When will the 10% say it isn't worth the extra effort anymore and the tax revenues actually begin going down?
What happens then?
I hear the beaches in Costa Rica are white and beautiful .... hmmmm.
1 comment:
Does it not say explicitly in the Constitution that any powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states? I think that should be a pretty defining answer to the question of intent, and I would say it is expressly limiting. It is simply inconvenient for those in Washington to admit such a fact.
I find it funny when people suggest that the government should have more power to take care of social issues when it would be far more practical, transparent, and effective for people to be simply invest their money into foundations and organizations that they believe would be able to achieve those social aims. Giving that money to the government means the money will be spent on many things that we as a people will not agree with. I like to use the example of the Iraq War. There is far more money spent on that war than there is support for that war. If people wish to see that money invested in schools, hospitals, and infrastructure, then why do they not donate money to schools, hospitals, and infrastructure projects in their own communities?
People must take responsibility for themselves if they wish to empower themselves. It is unfortunate that so many who do not seek to disadvantage those who do, and that the federal government is all to ready to oblige.
So many people around me (college-age) complain about Monsanto, ConAgra, and oil companies that they see as problems and look to the government to fix it, when in reality, these companies are being subsidized by the very government these people are seeking to empower against them.
Post a Comment