Conquer Club

I think that some people don't know what the job of the Government is. They don't know why we have one. The Constitution of the United States, in it's Preamble, explains it very well. Let us review it now.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As you can see this is an Agreement of the People of the US, to each other; we are the government. We place these responsibilities not upon any one person or group of people, but on all people. These responsibilities are as follows:
1. Form a more perfect Union
2. Establish Justice
3. Insure domestic Tranquility
4. Provide for the common defence
5. Promote the general welfare
6. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Let us take a moment to think about these, what they mean, how to define them, which portions of the government fall under which item. Let us ponder, before we move on.

1. Forming a more perfect union. To me this implies some sort of unified system. With gradual concentration of power into a single body for greater efficiencies. Perhaps even eventually a single person.Therefore I believe what they meant by this is that states should be eventually abolished, and all power vested in some sort of despot.

2. Establish Justice. Seems pretty straight forward. This means to establish a just society. How could you have a just society if there are differences in income and living standards? They obviously intend for some sort of nationalization of industry and collectivization of agriculture to ensure justice.

3. Insure domestic tranquiltiy. They probably mean that the state should take what measures necesary to make sure there is no civil disorder. The best way to do that is to remove trouble makers, but why just shoot them? that's a waste lets have them work for the common good.

4. Provide for the common good. Obvi need a strong military, and the best defence is a good offence.

5.Promote general welfare. What better way then large social programs ensuring universal education, healthcare, housing and even access to food.

6. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. They are clearly referring to the eventual arrival of Communism. The best way to acheive that would be to have strong socialist state to guide the people there.

I am surprised to see the preamble is such a communist document.

The forefathers were reds!!! REDS I tell you!!!!

I'd like to see what peoples' interpretations of "insure domestic tranquility" means, and whether or not it is consistent with the philosophy of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and with its Bill of Rights.

bedub1 wrote:5. Promote the general welfare

Just making sure there is no room for screwing around here....BEAVE!!!

Promote - To urge the adoption of; advocate
Provide - To supply means of subsistence

Turns out the plague of non-plain-english has been around for a while eh?

Also PS welfare as we understand it can be covered by a number of those tenets, not just the one you are looking at.

Lootifer wrote:Turns out the plague of non-plain-english has been around for a while eh?

Also PS welfare as we understand it can be covered by a number of those tenets, not just the one you are looking at.

Yes, I know your arguments....

Phatscotty wrote:

bedub1 wrote:5. Promote the general welfare

Just making sure there is no room for screwing around here....BEAVE!!!

Promote - To urge the adoption of; advocate
Provide - To supply means of subsistence

good point and a cunning observation, Scott

+50 SaxBucks

GreecePWNS wrote:I'd like to see what peoples' interpretations of "insure domestic tranquility" means, and whether or not it is consistent with the philosophy of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and with its Bill of Rights.

The first thing that comes to my mind is to quash insurrections/civil unrest and adjudicate disputes.

However, Robert Yates - who voted against the constitution - said this and other parts are intentionally vague because the framers wanted the federal government to become all-powerful -

If it be further considered, that this constitution, if it is ratified, will not be a compact entered into by states, in their corporate capacities, but an agreement of the people of the United States, as one great body politic, no doubt can remain, but that the great end of the constitution, if it is to be collected from the preamble, in which its end is declared, is to constitute a government which is to extend to every case for which any government is instituted, whether external or internal.

Any person, who will peruse the eighth section with attention, in which most of the powers are enumerated, will perceive that they either expressly or by implication extend to almost every thing about which any legislative power can be employed.

didn't BBS just make this thread?

GreecePwns wrote:I'd like to see what peoples' interpretations of "insure domestic tranquility" means, and whether or not it is consistent with the philosophy of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution and with its Bill of Rights.

Clearly they were talking about drones

Army of GOD wrote:didn't BBS just make this thread?

Crap am I duplicating threads? I don't remember seeing one...but I don't read every thread.

bedub1 wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:didn't BBS just make this thread?

Crap am I duplicating threads? I don't remember seeing one...but I don't read every thread.

Yes and sadly its following the same ethnocentric path as the previous one,there are approx. 200 nation states in the world each with its own particular form of government,why does every discussion on an international forum have to concentrate on the domestic arrangements of 0.5% of them?Fair enough if the question was 'The purpose of the US government"but it clearly wasn't..

Phatscotty wrote:

bedub1 wrote:5. Promote the general welfare

Just making sure there is no room for screwing around here....BEAVE!!!

Promote - To urge the adoption of; advocate
Provide - To supply means of subsistence

pro·mote   [pruh-moht] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing.
1.
to help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.
2.
to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc. ( opposed to demote).
3.
Education . to put ahead to the next higher stage or grade of a course or series of classes.
4.
to aid in organizing (business undertakings).
5.
to encourage the sales, acceptance, etc., of (a product), especially through advertising or other publicity.

Promote can also mean to move something to the next level. To improve it as it were. So if the government wishes to promote social good, in other words move it to the next level, then obviously the best way to do that is to provide the people with the means to do so. Massive social programs.

Man was this thing written by this guy?



Makes sense, he was pretty concerned with all the things mentioned. He was also apparently successful, look how happy those children are! They're brining him flowers!

Baron Von PWN wrote:1. Forming a more perfect union. To me this implies some sort of unified system. With gradual concentration of power into a single body for greater efficiencies. Perhaps even eventually a single person.Therefore I believe what they meant by this is that states should be eventually abolished, and all power vested in some sort of despot.

2. Establish Justice. Seems pretty straight forward. This means to establish a just society. How could you have a just society if there are differences in income and living standards? They obviously intend for some sort of nationalization of industry and collectivization of agriculture to ensure justice.

3. Insure domestic tranquiltiy. They probably mean that the state should take what measures necesary to make sure there is no civil disorder. The best way to do that is to remove trouble makers, but why just shoot them? that's a waste lets have them work for the common good.

4. Provide for the common good. Obvi need a strong military, and the best defence is a good offence.

5.Promote general welfare. What better way then large social programs ensuring universal education, healthcare, housing and even access to food.

6. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. They are clearly referring to the eventual arrival of Communism. The best way to acheive that would be to have strong socialist state to guide the people there.

I am surprised to see the preamble is such a communist document.

Good point, BVP.

We kinda need the entire Constitution in order to understand how it lays out the checks and balances, and the balance between State governance and federal governance.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:1. Forming a more perfect union. To me this implies some sort of unified system. With gradual concentration of power into a single body for greater efficiencies. Perhaps even eventually a single person.Therefore I believe what they meant by this is that states should be eventually abolished, and all power vested in some sort of despot.

2. Establish Justice. Seems pretty straight forward. This means to establish a just society. How could you have a just society if there are differences in income and living standards? They obviously intend for some sort of nationalization of industry and collectivization of agriculture to ensure justice.

3. Insure domestic tranquiltiy. They probably mean that the state should take what measures necesary to make sure there is no civil disorder. The best way to do that is to remove trouble makers, but why just shoot them? that's a waste lets have them work for the common good.

4. Provide for the common good. Obvi need a strong military, and the best defence is a good offence.

5.Promote general welfare. What better way then large social programs ensuring universal education, healthcare, housing and even access to food.

6. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. They are clearly referring to the eventual arrival of Communism. The best way to acheive that would be to have strong socialist state to guide the people there.

I am surprised to see the preamble is such a communist document.

Good point, BVP.

We kinda need the entire Constitution in order to understand how it lays out the checks and balances, and the balance between State governance and federal governance.

No, it is meant to be torn apart in little bits so it can be misconstrued for nefarious purposes.

notyou2 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Baron Von PWN wrote:1. Forming a more perfect union. To me this implies some sort of unified system. With gradual concentration of power into a single body for greater efficiencies. Perhaps even eventually a single person.Therefore I believe what they meant by this is that states should be eventually abolished, and all power vested in some sort of despot.

2. Establish Justice. Seems pretty straight forward. This means to establish a just society. How could you have a just society if there are differences in income and living standards? They obviously intend for some sort of nationalization of industry and collectivization of agriculture to ensure justice.

3. Insure domestic tranquiltiy. They probably mean that the state should take what measures necesary to make sure there is no civil disorder. The best way to do that is to remove trouble makers, but why just shoot them? that's a waste lets have them work for the common good.

4. Provide for the common good. Obvi need a strong military, and the best defence is a good offence.

5.Promote general welfare. What better way then large social programs ensuring universal education, healthcare, housing and even access to food.

6. Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. They are clearly referring to the eventual arrival of Communism. The best way to acheive that would be to have strong socialist state to guide the people there.

I am surprised to see the preamble is such a communist document.

Good point, BVP.

We kinda need the entire Constitution in order to understand how it lays out the checks and balances, and the balance between State governance and federal governance.

No, it is meant to be torn apart in little bits so it can be misconstrued for nefarious purposes.

Your remark is Unconstitutional. You will be sentenced to 30 years hard labor at BvP's Summer Camp.

Constitutions are for schmucks...

The inherent problem with any government is that it's impossible to protect the needs/wants of ALL the people all the time.

thus the question is: should we just say "f*ck the minority" and run a tyranny of the majority?

Army of GOD wrote:The inherent problem with any government is that it's impossible to protect the needs/wants of ALL the people all the time.

thus the question is: should we just say "f*ck the minority" and run a tyranny of the majority?

Thats democracy in a nutshell (minus the negative adjectives ofc).

Army of GOD wrote:The inherent problem with any government is that it's impossible to protect the needs/wants of ALL the people all the time.

thus the question is: should we just say "f*ck the minority" and run a tyranny of the majority?

Everyone in favor of having non-consensual sex with AoG's mom while forcing AoG to watch as he dances in a midget outfit say "Aye!"


(Note: all legal repercussions against those in favor of "Aye!" can be effectively rejected through voting!)

nay!


The nays have it!

Lootifer wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:The inherent problem with any government is that it's impossible to protect the needs/wants of ALL the people all the time.

thus the question is: should we just say "f*ck the minority" and run a tyranny of the majority?

Thats democracy in a nutshell (minus the negative adjectives ofc).

That's essentially what democracy is, so the question then becomes: what kind of constitution do we want? (as in, what kind of rules should we implement on our government?)


With creating a constitution, there's the main issue of controlling Leviathan when Leviathan is at the helm... ("who watches the Watchman?")

BigBallinStalin wrote:With creating a constitution, there's the main issue of controlling Leviathan when Leviathan is at the helm... ("who watches the Watchman?")

Saxi's on it.

The science nerds durrr!

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:With creating a constitution, there's the main issue of controlling Leviathan when Leviathan is at the helm... ("who watches the Watchman?")

Saxi's on it.

Everyone, give that handsome dictator a round of applause.