RE: Good-bye NFL
I believe all this was already discussed and decided a long time ago by our founders ergo our resulting Constitution. The problem today is that people for some reason (their belief that it's outdated, that our founders couldn't have possibly been able to fortell the future yadda yadda) people seem to feel the need to re-debate the issue of our Constitution as though the wisdom contained in it is not timeless. I believe that ANY issue today can be addressed in THE most responsive to need for solution precisely by following the rules in the Constitution. Gay rights, radical Islamic terror threat, economic stability, etc etc. This I believe to be the mindset of today's what I call Right. Not most Republicans in the Republican Party and especially not at all any Democrats in the Democratic Party. I believe those two old Parties are now one political establishment which Trump (at least as far as the Republican Party is concerned) and his supporters are slowly morphing into the new Populist Party I guess you could call it. We're not interested in conjuring up old debate on the best way to run our Nation. We already know the best known to mankind. And it's through giving the States back their power, limiting the Fed to it's 'limited' role and bam! Making America great again....;)
The problem with your assessment of the constitution is that the fedeal government exceeded its legal limits long ago, and the resulting status quo is what people like yourself consider to be 'constitutional.' The truth is that the constitution has been radically altered from its inception. It is no longer a bed rock for this country. The original constitution did not authorize a personal income tax, it did not authorize a central bank to control the money supply and interest rates, it did not authorize
the government to dictate what substances you could put in your own body, it did not authorize a plethora of intel agencies to warrantlessly search your personal property, it did not authorize medicare, medicade, or any entitlement program; it did not authorize a government program for every problem in society. But all of these things and many more expansions of state power have been normalized, and forced to fit the 'limited government' mold. So I will ask you again: is the government the ultimate purveyor of moral facts and if not is there a law or moral principle independent of and superior to the legislation of governments?
I'm not sure what your beef with my views are and totally confused as to what your answer is. I do not believe that any of us has a better 'constitution' if you will, than the one we have now. Of course it's been subverted. And no, I do not believe all these years of subversion to be 'normal'. My goal is to keep the 'Constitution' the baseline of the ultimate perveyor of moral facts and no, I do not believe ANYTHING to be superior to that. Are you insinuating that you believe there is something independent of our form of Republic that is?
I think we should dismantle as much of these overreaches as possible ie: Federal dept of education, welfare, taxes, all of it!
'My goal is to keep the 'Constitution' the baseline of the ultimate perveyor of moral facts and no, I do not believe ANYTHING to be superior to that.'
So by your estimation the framers just decided one day that allowing freedom of speech, due process of law, and protection against arbitrary searches and seziures was the right thing to do. That the right to life, liberty, and property are rights just because they said so? There is no deeper truth to the principles contained in the bill of rights, other than the fact that the framers just decided to put them there?