Should the FDA and EPA exist? Or should "freedum" prevail?

So you believe that granting massive, unconstitutional powers, has prevented accidents from happening?

The Obama regime shook down BP for billions. Organized crime has moved its headquarters from Chicago to Washington DC.

We would be far better off if we abolished every unconstitutional independent agency and dealt with the problems at the state level. Instead we have embraced tyranny. We are paying a huge price for it.

It is time to stop this madness and restore the balance of power between the States, the people and the federal government. A Convention of States is the only lawful answer that has any chance of restoring the Constitution.

 

Good question.

People band together to solve specific problems. In the case of the colonies they began with charters mostly from the British crown. I have never been interested in the origins of the colonies. I will leave their origins to someone who has that interest.

I suppose if one says plus or minus a hundred years is about the same time...Virginia was founded in 1607. The revolt became real in 1775.

I have come to expect a steady flow of errors from you. People form governments to solve specific problems. The smart ones use written instruments to make clear what powers are given. I do not believe that you understand this.

And this is why you fail. Sure this is the end state of tyrannical regimes. We already have this. We have a radical Environmental Protection Agency that creates law, enforces law and acts as its own judiciary. If you were better at this you would recognize this as tyrannical. We have a tyrannical Bureau of Land Management. And both are armed to the teeth.

You fail because you have a single view of tyranny that omits nearly all of it.

Sure you have. (I admit that I do not believe you).

Sure you do. Can you explain why the Federalist Papers were important? Can you do the same for the Anti-Federalist papers?

As suspected you did not even last three sentences.

Yes. But what do they tell you? You miss so much by keeping your eyes so tightly closed. Why not just admit that you never read them? It is clear that you haven't.

This is why you fail. Why were they written? Who wrote them? What impact did they have? You don't know do you?

Forget Constitutional law. The Constitution has been significantly damaged. The law has become part of he problem. But you don't know that because you have no idea when they were written, who wrote them, why they wrote them or what their effects were.

Really? Can you show me the chain of logic that brought you to this point? Not only is it wrong it is irrelevant.

True. It is a remarkable compromise that allowed thirteen sovereign states to agree to become a federation of sovereign states. Now why are the the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers important?

Therefore why are the debates on the Constitution important? Open your eyes. You can see the answer if you want to see it.

And yet we have many indications written by them that tell us with certainty that they devised a document that significantly restricted a federal government and gave the States an important role in keeping the federation in check.

You should have stopped at the end of the previous paragraph. It is clear that the federal government would be robust and powerful for those enumerated powers. It is also clear that the federal government was not unlimited. Had it been clearly laid out we would not be one nation today. The founders would not have ratified the instrument of today's tyranny.

You could not be more wrong. Federal powers were not delegated to the states. The states created a federation to solve problems in the Articles of Confederation.

Then you agree with me that we absolutely need a Convention of States to propose Amendments. We can end the growing tyranny.

 

Still no response on state sovereignty in the Constitution. Predictable

 

You can sell them stuff to make them dead when there's no recourse

 

But only once and every company depends on repeat business and word of mouth will kill your business.

 

Oh, let's see. The Federalist was a collection of essays published in 1787 and 1788 in the Independent Journal and the New York Packet in support of ratification. The target was generally taken to be New York where the ratification was being held up by Governor George Clinton and the Anti-Federalist forces. The authorship of the essays were not actually confirmed until the early 1800s and the collection was not published as a volume until the mid 19th century. They had limited impact if history is any indication since Clinton's Anti-Federalist delegates outnumbered Federalist supporters by about 3 to 1. It was rather a mute argument since New York was the 10th state to ratify when only 9 was actually needed. It was politically convenient for New York to finally ratify so their weren't the odd man out at the convening of Congress.

However, more to the point, I refuse to allow the discussion to blend these opinion pieces with the actual Constitution which is the basis of all Federal Law. Whether you like it or not, it is only the Constitution that matters and the accepted interpreter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court, ( another post ratification development yet undeniably true ). The Court has spoken to the matter and has ruled that the various agencies are indeed Constitutional and a valid implementation of Constitutional powers.

The Constitution defines a method for you to correct this ruling if you gather enough public support. All you need to is convince your fellow citizens to convene a Constitutional Convention or alternatively amend the existing Constitution to correct these errors. I would encourage you to actively pursue this endeavor if you see fit rather than just bemoan the fact on computer forums. You can start by trying to convince me that this a needed change, something that you thus far have failed to do.

 

i don't think a private company would want the job. when a business screws up, they get sued. when a government agency screws up real bad, the boss has to go talk to Congress.

 

Have you read Beeman's book yet? "Our Lives, Our Fortunes and Our Sacred Honor". I listened to him discussing it and it intrigued me.

 

How naive! Word of mouth may never come for a product that takes 30 years to kill you. Or contains something that causes birth defects in your children. Try proving any of those, especially against corporate lawyers.

There are examples across the board where companies consider the cost/benefit of a particular action. If the profits from the continued sale of a product outweigh the possible payouts from wrongful death lawsuits, they'll leave a defective product on the market. If you're not aware of those, you should do a little research.

 

I was referring to pollution.... EPA

but we have seen from China the kind of safe (LEAD PAINT) toys they would provide us with

.

 

I have not. But the reviews are interesting so I'll add it to my reading list. Thank you for the tip!

 

We should be thankful we live in an era where the government has imposed itself as the supreme estabilisher of minimun standards for everything, so that we don't eat poisoned food, we don't drive dangerous cars, we can go around at night without risking our lives ( well this depends on where you live and a bit of luck too ).

 

Life is so simple. Over regulation is regulation you don't like. Good regulation is regulation you do like. Just like government spending. Or maybe it is just a matter of what gets politicians votes rather than logic.

 

Love to see a libertarian/rightwinger read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"....

and then tell us of the "Good Ol' Days" before food inspections.

 

So if the Supreme Court desires it is constitutional it is not tyranny? Or are you the "decider"

 

yep, just look at the south and the Pellagra outbreak there


.

 

You can use an Internet search engine. But that alone cannot give you wisdom.

Why were all of the essays of the Federalists and the anti-federalists important then and why do they remain important today?

You claim we cannot know what the founders thought. Really? We have hundreds of essays and correspondence. We know the political philosophers they read, we know the revolution they fought and won. We know what they thought of unlimited, centralized, unaccountable powers.

That is the wannabe tyrant in you speaking. You cannot control this discussion. You barely control yourself.

No. It is not the only Constitution that matters. We can restore the balance of powers the original Constitution provided. We are not bound to live in tyranny just because a few men in black robes elected to act tyrannically in our past. We can demand of our state legislatures that they petition the Congress for an Article V Convention of States to propose Amendments. This is what we are doing.

They also agreed that slavery was Constitutional. They also agreed that segregation was Constitutional. They also agreed that rounding up Americans in WWII was Constitutional. They are not gods. Nor do they need to be treated as if they are. The states need a way to overturn a supreme court decision. We can discuss and propose ways to eliminate this massive transfer of power, tyrannically taken by the supreme courts, and restore liberty. We have the way to do it.

Does the Constitution provide for a lawful way to have a constitutional convention? I do not recall the Constitution providing for a method to end itself.

The federal government is the problem. It cannot be relied upon to fix the tyranny that it has caused. Fortunately the founders were aware that this government had the seeds of tyranny within it so they gave the states the ability to overcome federal tyranny while remaining within the Constitution.

I, and many others, are already working on a Convention of States to propose amendments. I have no interest in converting tyrants. But I can use your foolishness as a foil to convince others. That is my purpose.

I cannot imagine a universe within which you would give up your desire for a tyrannical central government. But it does not matter. There are many of us who are working on this every day. We will win or we may lose. If we win you shall be saved from yourself.

 

If it is not provided for in the Constitution then it is unconstitutional. Nine men and women in black are not special. They are, however, part of the growing tyranny. We need an Article V Convention of states to propose amendments. One amendment we need is a method to overturn a supreme court wrongful decision.

You know in your heart that the supremes are wannabe tyrants. Our values are not their values. We have to fix this problem and we will.

 

Both organizations 'should exist' but both should be controlled and accountable, which is where the problem lies....

 

Please refrain from using the term "our" in discussions with me. I find it somewhat repugnant for you to assume a commonality of values.

 

"If it is not provided for in the Constitution then it is unconstitutional. Nine men and women in black are not special. They are, however, part of the growing tyranny. We need an Article V Convention of states to propose amendments. One amendment we need is a method to overturn a supreme court wrongful decision.

You know in your heart that the supremes are wannabe tyrants. Our values are not their values. We have to fix this problem and we will.

Don't worry your pretty little head. No one will believe that someone like you will have the same values as a real American. I was being polite.

 

Of course we need regulation. Hell I need regulation in my own household. Without some rules and regulations everything simply goes to hell and anarchy prevails. But when government bureaucracies become little gestapos, it's time to do some reigning in. Some of the antics of the EPA have been somewhat 'out of line' in my opinion. And how does the FDA keep giving it's stamp of approval on drugs and foods that can kill people or eventually take a serious toll on their health? The 'Politicos' shouldn't be able to use agencies like the EPA or IRS to sic on their political rivals. And all should be free of ideological agendas.

 

The point being is that you don't know whether a company is putting poison in your food, drugs, cosmetics.

 

Change your avatar to "Dodgeball", "NoAnswer" or something similar.

The states "knew" they were sovereign? Laughable.

Your "sovereign state" claim simply doesn't exist. You're the one who claims if it's not in the Constitution then it's unconstitutional. Then turn around in the same breath and claim state sovereignty is when it's not even mentioned. And the pitiable thing is that you don't even recognize your own self-defeating argument.

Done on this one. You've beheaded yourself and the only thing left is a RWer flailing around with its head cut off.

 

I doubt if the human resources department would be helpful here.

I think this thread is supposed to be about the FDA and other federal abominations, so here's a youtube video that addresses that issue:

[video=youtube;hTEFAeVBdKw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTEFAeVBdKw[/video]

This is an hour long but well worth the time. If you can't take an hour, any 10 minute part of it will provide some interesting fodder for the discussion at hand.