Nitack Posted August 29, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 Looks to me like all you really want is a neocon paradise, You obviously have it in for Democrats and liberals. personally i don't trust either side, i don't worship at the alter of either side. both sides have good ideas but neither side is omnipotent. either extreme is bad, and yes I expect companies to make money but I do not expect the government to blow them either. I'm actually a libertarian. I believe that government needs to be as small as possible to accomplish only one goal, which is to ensure and protect my rights. Part of that protection is to keep the religious right from trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 29, 2008 Report Share Posted August 29, 2008 I'm actually a libertarian. I believe that government needs to be as small as possible to accomplish only one goal, which is to ensure and protect my rights. Part of that protection is to keep the religious right from trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of the population. I used to be a libertarian, i was registered as one too but then I was injured on the job and put out of the game because I worked too hard for my company. I found out real quick how easy it is to be trash canned when you are no good to anyone any more. It has taken me ten years to get my self back together at a level even a fraction of what i was. Now I feel a little different about libertarians. I'm glad liberals put laws into place that allowed me to live with a little dignity instead of living under a bridge some where. It's sad the company didn't have to pay for my injury but now I'm too old to employ and I do not have enough education to compete with most people my age. My health is still to bad for me to dig ditches. So libertarianism isn't all that great either unless you are young and healthy or old and had a lucky youth. I have neither and i depend on my government check and the little my old employer gives me. I don't like it much but so far i haven't figured a away around the situation. So none of the three major schools of thought are really right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 I used to be a libertarian, i was registered as one too but then I was injured on the job and put out of the game because I worked too hard for my company. I found out real quick how easy it is to be trash canned when you are no good to anyone any more. It has taken me ten years to get my self back together at a level even a fraction of what i was. Now I feel a little different about libertarians. I'm glad liberals put laws into place that allowed me to live with a little dignity instead of living under a bridge some where. It's sad the company didn't have to pay for my injury but now I'm too old to employ and I do not have enough education to compete with most people my age. My health is still to bad for me to dig ditches. So libertarianism isn't all that great either unless you are young and healthy or old and had a lucky youth. I have neither and i depend on my government check and the little my old employer gives me. I don't like it much but so far i haven't figured a away around the situation. So none of the three major schools of thought are really right. Not knowing the company you worked for or any of the particulars, this response in not directed at you but to the content which I have heard so many times.... Government didn't get you to the level of any success you enjoyed, was not responsible for you injury and not responsible for you getting back to some form of success. In fact the remedies in place and should have helped came from the private sector. If injured on the job (said was), your employer by law had insurance, generally under Workman's comp, and they paid unemployment insurance on you, for whatever reason (short of quitting) you were terminated. In most cases this should have paid all cost to get you back to normal and a temporary wage near equal to what you had been receiving (different states, different limits). Disability is another issue and government is responsible for portion payments, through your SS contribution and can last a lifetime being added to when SS kicks in. You also had the recourse through the court system, even to an extent of lost income from no longer being viable in that one field. Donk; Those 'guys' that wrote the constitution, represented what they perceived as sovereign Nations, all 13. Briefly; They intended the Federal Government to concern itself with issues that were in 'Common Interest' of the total and concern itself with nothing considered there (later) State rights. I still believe, we 'own' the government and they under our States are restricted to the limits of those laws. In fact short of Taxes or laws involving multiple states, you would have a hard time giving an example of Federal Law in your life. Nitack; 'The more perfect government' IMO has been an evolution of the original, as was intended. As in any government, when changes do occur and once accepted it becomes almost impossible to revert back. Short of some regional/ideological divide or the States inability to cope with existing problems these changes should allow natural transitions to suit the needs of the majority of States. Those issues, which should be State problems and have become National problems (Illegal Immigration, Energy Policy, Environmental concerns, etc) can in some manner be placed on a National Referendum, if polls/elections not sufficient, allowing representatives, senators and the executives to be influenced, but should not dictate final actions. I will be watching for you comments on 'reserved post'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 30, 2008 Report Share Posted August 30, 2008 Not knowing the company you worked for or any of the particulars, this response in not directed at you but to the content which I have heard so many times.... Government didn't get you to the level of any success you enjoyed, was not responsible for you injury and not responsible for you getting back to some form of success. In fact the remedies in place and should have helped came from the private sector. Should have, is the key phrase here If injured on the job (said was), your employer by law had insurance, generally under Workman's comp, and they paid unemployment insurance on you, for whatever reason (short of quitting) you were terminated. In most cases this should have paid all cost to get you back to normal and a temporary wage near equal to what you had been receiving (different states, different limits). Disability is another issue and government is responsible for portion payments, through your SS contribution and can last a lifetime being added to when SS kicks in. You also had the recourse through the court system, even to an extent of lost income from no longer being viable in that one field. I was employed fro more than 30 years before I was injured, I now live on disability retirement. 3/4 of this is from the government. From my own SS payments I would think but I still feel my old employer should have been responsible for more if it from their own pocket. My State, NC, has Laws that favor the employer big time in these matters. have you ever thought of taking a huge corporation to court, I talked to lawyers, they said I was lucky to get what I got in my state. I am quite well qualified to make polyester but 25 years of education to do that one thing and then ten years of recovery from my injuries doesn't leave me trained for much else. I am contemplating going to school to be a teacher but at my age I wonder how realistic that is. Donk; Those 'guys' that wrote the constitution, represented what they perceived as sovereign Nations, all 13. Briefly; They intended the Federal Government to concern itself with issues that were in 'Common Interest' of the total and concern itself with nothing considered there (later) State rights. I still believe, we 'own' the government and they under our States are restricted to the limits of those laws. In fact short of Taxes or laws involving multiple states, you would have a hard time giving an example of Federal Law in your life. Hmm, drinking laws, drug laws, at one time speed limits, are just a few small examples of federal laws that states have to follow or be denied federal funds. States are free to ignore these laws but federal coercion usually stops this. In the case of drug laws the feds can arrest you for say Pot even if it is legal in your state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 Hmm, drinking laws, drug laws, at one time speed limits, are just a few small examples of federal laws that states have to follow or be denied federal funds. States are free to ignore these laws but federal coercion usually stops this. In the case of drug laws the feds can arrest you for say Pot even if it is legal in your state. In reading many post on this forum and in direct relation to this thread, I have thought about 'Government Coercion' or that simply enforcing the intent of the 'Constitution' should be the issue. The intend for a qualified representative/official for instance, specifically addresses 'physical/mental' competence. Coercion to force a State compliance with implied law, has never been tested in the supreme court, since States are not required to take federal funding, nor has any state actually been denied those funds. Drinking Laws (Today**) are not only under State Law, many states have allowed counties, even cities, to make local law. Regulation of whatever those laws are, fall to the States for enforcement. The standard age, may be from coercion, but all states have allowed this age, for a number of reasons. **The Federal took 'jurisdiction' from the states, under the procedures allowed in the constitution after ratification of the 18th amendment 1919'Alcohol Prohibition'. A-21 (1933) repealed this and the Federal lost jurisdiction. No federal agent, can arrest, detain or prosecute any person suspected of a crime committed with in any one state. I'm not even sure they can legally refer any case to the local authorities. Where the Fed does get involved is when state lines are crossed or the state request assistance. The point of my post to 'Donk' is most folks think many State laws, are thought to be federal and not.... North Carolina Tort Reform, (NC-HB 729, 1995), limits punitive damages that a jury/judge can impose against the defendant ($250,000). Actual damages are not effected and earning potential is part of actual. I would agree, that if your company was (in any way) responsible for your injury, they should be held liable to have made you whole then and until the time you could function as at the time of the injury. If age prevented this, then to the time of normal retirement and with any retirement package. Guessing your in your mid to late 50's, there are many things you should be qualified to do. In the early 2000's, a lot of people involved with in the Tech Bubble burst and late in their lives, were forced to move on with out any help.Many others, were forced into retirement for any number of reasons also w/o any additional help and from some major corporations. If you already have a College Degree, there would not be much additional education required to teach in most districts. Your story also would probably qualify you for one of 100 possible Federal/State/Industry grants, to start a business or improve the products you know best. Maybe, I am simply telling you the injury did not kill you or the future you still have and its up to you to make what you can of that future... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 31, 2008 Report Share Posted August 31, 2008 North Carolina Tort Reform, (NC-HB 729, 1995), limits punitive damages that a jury/judge can impose against the defendant ($250,000). Actual damages are not effected and earning potential is part of actual. I would agree, that if your company was (in any way) responsible for your injury, they should be held liable to have made you whole then and until the time you could function as at the time of the injury. If age prevented this, then to the time of normal retirement and with any retirement package. Guessing your in your mid to late 50's, there are many things you should be qualified to do. In the early 2000's, a lot of people involved with in the Tech Bubble burst and late in their lives, were forced to move on with out any help.Many others, were forced into retirement for any number of reasons also w/o any additional help and from some major corporations. If you already have a College Degree, there would not be much additional education required to teach in most districts. Your story also would probably qualify you for one of 100 possible Federal/State/Industry grants, to start a business or improve the products you know best. Maybe, I am simply telling you the injury did not kill you or the future you still have and its up to you to make what you can of that future... Well, I don't want to make myself look like a victim because i chose my life, it just wasn't the choice I thought I was getting. I went to work directly out of high school, the company told me they would educate me while I worked and gave me a good job and educated me to make the best polyester in the world. Unfortunately what i didn't know was they didn't intend to keep me employed or keep making polyester. so instead of being given a new job in the company when I was injured like so many others were I was forced out on disability retirement. It took a long time (mostly of being a guinea pig) for the doctors to decide my nerve damage couldn't be fixed and to get me on heavy drugs for the pain, it took me even longer to realize the drugs were killing me and to get off them. (it really is just like they say) Now I am still in constant pain and trying to figure out how to do something to justify the air I breath. I'm not sure if I ever will be worth much physically, Good days where I feel like it's time to do something are often followed by days of extreme pain where i can barely get around. So I have to find something to do that pays at least as much as I now make and that gives some feeling of purpose but that is within my abilities. so far volunteering is about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Coercion to force a State compliance with implied law, has never been tested in the supreme court, since States are not required to take federal funding, nor has any state actually been denied those funds. I haven't really kept up with this thread, but I noticed the above and thought I'd comment though it may be off topic. Federal law has the authority of the federal government and overrides state law by virtue of the federal government having a bigger stick. A federal judge once told the governor of Arkansas to integrate the schools in little rock. The governor didn't comply so they sent in the 101st airborne and some federalized national guard to enforce the federal order. That was the end of that. I'm sure there are many other examples of forced compliance... I believe recently there was some example involving the 10 commandments on display. The supreme court is a federal court and trumps all state supreme courts. Same goes with the executive branch. I'm all for state's rights, but the civil war effectively ended the argument of who is ultimately in charge. ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Unless the Federal takes jurisdiction in some authorized manner or the a State relinquishes its right (ask), States maintain jurisdiction over all issues not covered by the constitution or Federal Law. Frankly today, the States simply don't want the responsibility, as Federal involvement means a means and money to do what they prefer not taking responsibility. Basically, much of the cause for the Katrina failure, where the Government of Louisiana refused to ask for assistance or in fact authorize Government assistance. Brown v Board of Education (347 US 483, 1954), a Supreme Court Ruling, based on several other law and amendments declared all law establishing 'segregated public school systems' were unconstitutional. Remember Eisenhower had already established an integrating military, think in 1952. The Little Rock PUBLIC SCHOOL district, laid out a plan for gradual integration (to begin 1956), which was opposed by many segregationist groups and Governor Faubus, opposed the plan, sending in the Arkansas National Guard to prevent the students to enter. Faubus did back down somewhat, but the local police maintained the obstruction. The Federal Government then sent in troops to escort the nine students, but that was hardly the end, but the troops did leave. All those students were subjected to harassment for the remainder of that year and to some degree for years to come. By the way the NAACP had picked these students and were doing the same things all over the south... The President can issue 'Executive Orders' and they can over ride state governments authority, but they can also be tested in the courts or simply done away with by Congressional action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted September 2, 2008 Report Share Posted September 2, 2008 Well, I don't want to make myself look like a victim because i chose my life, it just wasn't the choice I thought I was getting. I went to work directly out of high school, the company told me they would educate me while I worked and gave me a good job and educated me to make the best polyester in the world. Unfortunately what i didn't know was they didn't intend to keep me employed or keep making polyester. so instead of being given a new job in the company when I was injured like so many others were I was forced out on disability retirement. It took a long time (mostly of being a guinea pig) for the doctors to decide my nerve damage couldn't be fixed and to get me on heavy drugs for the pain, it took me even longer to realize the drugs were killing me and to get off them. (it really is just like they say) Now I am still in constant pain and trying to figure out how to do something to justify the air I breath. I'm not sure if I ever will be worth much physically, Good days where I feel like it's time to do something are often followed by days of extreme pain where i can barely get around. So I have to find something to do that pays at least as much as I now make and that gives some feeling of purpose but that is within my abilities. so far volunteering is about it. As I have said, you have a compelling story. Its hard to understand how someone could fall through so many cracks as apparently you have. Either you had the worst imaginable legal representation, the worst of possible advise or lived in some dream world. I feel sure, in your case the 'statutes of limitation' have expired and your receiving the limit of entitlements, but if not or your not sure, it would be worth your time to check in with a NC Attorney that deals in such cases. IMO, there may be some justification in mental state while recovering that could be used to extend recourse... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayra Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 To move this thread forward along it's intended course might I make a few suggestions? First of all, a "government" is simply the machine that the governing body operates to exercise its will. Like any machine, we should try to design it to meet certain parameters. Until these parameters are defined and generally agreed to, no real progress can be made. To help in defining the parameters of this machine, we need to define it's intended purpose(s). Remember to design a machine that can respond to changing needs and times, while setting predefined limits or safeguards on what the governing body can and cannot change so as to prevent subversion of the machine and make it dysfunctional in regards to it's intended purpose. A "Charter of freedoms and rights" (or is it rights and freedoms?)will help define the next step which would be a "Constitution".The constitution would be the document that all laws would be measured against. With these "parameters" a governing system can be defined that will attempt to attempt to accomplish your defined purposes while limiting the ability of the governing body to subvert the government. We do not have to do all of this work ourselves as many great thinkers over the years have done most of this footwork for us. For instance, in 1982 Canadians redefined themselves by the creation of a Charter of Rights(OK, I might be a tad biased here). Ignoring sections 16 through 23 and you should have most of what you want defined in there. Include the "Right to revolution" and the "Right to bear arms" if you so wish it, and you should be good to go for a start. Might I also suggest that when defining your constitution and charter of rights that you place IN LAW that these documents be written in a form understandable by all? No legalese in the base documents. It is not necessary. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donk Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Might I also suggest that when defining your constitution and charter of rights that you place IN LAW that these documents be written in a form understandable by all? No legalese in the base documents. It is not necessary. Thoughts?100% agree. A charter that can only be interpreted by lawyers isn't worth the paper it's written on. Pack the supreme court with your allies and you can do whatever you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 Even if the law was written for third graders, people would interpret to their advantage, requiring clarification and some final decision. Lawyers formed the US Constitution, Jefferson and Adams both lawyers drove the process, Jefferson actually writing the document. Instrumental was Franklin, a noted writer/author in his day and as a Law abiding society relay on law and the acceptance for survival. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayra Posted September 4, 2008 Report Share Posted September 4, 2008 So your stating that it is not possible to construct such a document using plain language? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctordick Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 *Reserved for our eventual document founding the more perfect government*I notice nothing has appeared here????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitack Posted September 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 I notice nothing has appeared here????? I was hoping to periodically update that one post in order to start writing our draft document. Unfortunately, I got pretty busy for the past week or so and have not been able to actually parse out the start of any structure for the document. We don't even know what the government will look like yet, how can we write a document? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 So your stating that it is not possible to construct such a document using plain language? Sorry Kayra, didn't see your post until just now checking to see if we had a vision of a new Government by Nitack... No, language can be as simple as you like. The problem comes when what that simple language doesn't cover (extenuating circumstances). Free speech, for instance has been established partial meaning in the 1st A. Thats about as simple as it gets. Then some one goes into the proverbial theater, yelling fire and three people get killed or any other use of free speech. The courts would still be needed. Then later a person uses a flag or money to buy an add to voice that free speech. Again, can means to speak be free speech and of course the answer yes. But can you freely speak of another person, liable laws and no you can't...What I think I am saying is that its not the wording of law that makes it complicated but the effort to include/exclude as much as possible. Even basic common law has the same problem, murder (killing another person) is illegal, but is it illegal to kill a person in defense of you home, family or country. Nothing in law and the Constitution is base for all law is or can be simply worded.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayra Posted September 8, 2008 Report Share Posted September 8, 2008 I can see and understand that. Since "Nothing in law and the Constitution is base for all law is or can be simply worded", then... There should then be no need in the constitution for anything more then a description of the spirit or intent of the founders. Clearly and properly worded, people can then rely on the judges and the judicial system to determine the validity of any law put in place by government. The complexities arising from different situations will continue to grow over time, that is inevitable. As an example, the entire issue of the right to keep and bear arms (only recently resolved) would have been quickly and easily understood if the intent of the forefathers had been more obvious. Am I being naive here? Zythryn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.