Comments for republican 101

Comment on Preserve, Protect, and Defend by TJ Bramblett

TJ Bramblett — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:32:31 +0000

I never knew of this Biblical commandment before, but I makes sense why God would have made this mandate. I agree with stance of this article for three reasons.

1) The act of writing out the Constitution would ensure that the President commits some or all of that founding document to memory.
2) A clearer recollection of the Presidential role would almost ensure a more Constitutional fulfillment of the office.
3) This practice would, as Deuteronomy suggests, foster a sense of humility as it acts as a reminder of the President’s commitment.

If U.S. Presidents were more deeply impressed with their fundamental duties, the executive office, and by extension the republic of the United States of America, would certainly be strengthened

Comment on Who creates jobs? by BurkOhbayashi

BurkOhbayashi — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:01:41 +0000

Most people would agree that the government is not directly involved in creating jobs. The only exception would be the jobs given to bureaucrats, but the general consensus seems to be that bureaucrats aren’t actually human beings, so perhaps they shouldn’t count.

Regardless, it is also accepted that government policy has an indirect effect in the creation of jobs. The government must, like Marco Rubio says, “create the enviornment” in which our national economy operates. Yet the question remains, ‘what type of enviornment is most condusive to the creation of jobs in America?’ The immediate stossel response is to cut back regulations, lower taxes, and free the private sector to do what it wants. But is that really going to create jobs, and if it does, are they going to be the kind of jobs we want? Every year we get less producers of actual goods and more lawyers, insurance salesmen, and McDonalds cash registers.

I could say more, but it would be a book. I love the free market, but the idea of a free market seperated from a responsible christian ethic haunts me. So I’m not as quick as others to declare war on government regulation that keeps the free market from doing whatever it pleases.

Comment on Preserve, Protect, and Defend by Snazzy Sean

Snazzy Sean — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:50:19 +0000

Comment #2

I don’t believe that hand-writing the Constitution will actually cause “unconstitutional” legislation to be reduced.

The Constitution is so vaguely written as to allow nearly anything depending on one’s perspective. I honestly believe that the majority of congressmen believe they are upholding the Constitution, their interpretation of it. What has occurred is that the “Republican” interpretation of the Constitution differs from the “Democrat” interpretation of the Constitution. Thus, all that writing down the constitution would do would be to strengthen already held biases. No congressman attempts to intentionally violate the Constitution. If fact, most believe they are following the Constitution. The violation occurs because of differing interpretations of the Constitution.

Thus, writing the Constitution won’t solve the problem because it exists purely because of conflicting views. It’s possible that a very few Constitutionally illiterate Congressman may be affected by handwriting the constitution, but to really solve the problem, it would be better to convince the Congressmen one disagrees with of their point of view.

Sean

Comment on The Master Art by caraliebalcom

caraliebalcom — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:12:05 +0000

I find it interesting that people are calling science an art at all. According to good old Merriam Webster (the time-relevant online dictionary and thesaurus), science is defined as “the state of knowing; knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.” And the thesaurus defines science as “a body of facts learned by study or experience.”
While it is true that scientists involved in pharmaceutical and maybe agricultural pursuits must “master” their knowledge of drugs etc. in order to find the right combinations for things. And studying and learning the properties of the physical world is in a scientist’s job description. But as far as “art” goes, in the sense that politics is considered an art, there is no fine line that scientists have to walk — well there is one, but they don’t know it’s there, and therefore do not treat it as it should be treated, and therefore have not recognized the where the art of mastering science lies.

Comment on The Master Art by Katie L

Katie L — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:42:32 +0000

It seems that on many controversial topics the politicians tend to equivocate and keep things as vague as possible. But, when we are dealing with matters of life and death it is crucial that we are clear on what is being proposed. Through deciphering Michael West’s quote we understand him to be ultimately helping others with his research. But, agreeing with Rachelle, this cannot come at the cost of another’s life.

Comment on Preserve, Protect, and Defend by J-Rob

J-Rob — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:33:27 +0000

The reason why it is suggested that the President make his own copy of the Constitution, so for him to fully understand what he is signing up for.

Swearing to defend the Constitution without knowing it, doesn’t amount to a whole lot.

I think the term “God’s Law” needs to be clarified a bit for the purposes of this discussion. Are we referring to Old Testament Law? Or to love the Lord your God with all you heart, mind and soul, an love your neighbor as yourself?

Comment on Who creates jobs? by Greg Pittman

Greg Pittman — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:13:50 +0000

I think that it is a terrible mistake to enable the government to oversee the creating of jobs. In many cases it would seem wise to have government as a job creating force. However, that is under the impression that we have a truly selfless government that is “for the people”. That isn’t taking into account the human element. Although we have many bonuses and upsides to our system of government, if we give the right to create jobs to the government, we are also giving them the power to design/define social classes and working classes. With the government creating jobs, we are removing the need for creativity and innovation. Without this man becomes lazy and loses portions of hope. A systematic communist style environment. The government has decided the working class and social status of each member of society. This also allows the government to put who they want in what positions they want them in. I firmly disagree with job creation from the Government. We the people will rally around each other in times of struggle… we have proved that over the past 100 years, time and time again. And to use a popular cliche, when the going gets tough, the tough get going.

Comment on Who creates jobs? by brittanyloper

brittanyloper — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:16:22 +0000

I am a firm believer in a government that has a little regulation and dealings with the day to day life of its people as possible. I agree that there is a point in which the government must step in and help stimulate job growth and consumer spending, however I think and agree with the senator that politicians themselves should not be the creator of jobs. If the government was the entity in charge of producing employment, the incentives for new businesses, competitive tendencies and overall motivation would be at a loss. We consumers, act in the interest of ourselves and will natural create a market of producers and consumers that if left to flow as normal, should level out and create a balance of all members.

Comment on Who creates jobs? by SonnydaBear

SonnydaBear — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:59:14 +0000

The Role of Government is to keep the strong from literally killing or hurting the weak, both the strong within the country and the strong without: Domestic order and National Defense. This role should be carried out with as few “Government Employees” as possible. The more employees a government has, and the more industries it spreads those employees across, the more competition will be stifled in those industries. In the end, no private sector business will survive being in competition with the government. Why? Because governments play by different rules. Government controls the laws that regulate an industry, and government run businesses don’t have to make a profit to stay in business.

Government attempting to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs (not necessarily contributing to domestic order or national defense), is like a black sludge creeping throughout a thriving ecosystem, making it hard to see and choking out the competition.

Comment on Preserve, Protect, and Defend by marilee.turscak

marilee.turscak — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 03:29:57 +0000

In many ways, the suggestion that the president hand write a copy of the Constitution is similar to the idea of the King’s honor code. The written document would serve as a reminder that the president has agreed to adhere to a set of standards, and this reminder would affect not only the president, but also his cabinet and fellow citizens (as it would create a more widespread awareness of Constitutional material).

With that said, it is unnecessary to require the president to copy the Constitution when he has already sworn to defend it. The oath in itself is a stable enough reminder of the president’s duty, and whether the president chooses to uphold his promise is dependent on the heart attitude of the individual president. The idea can relate to 1 John 3:18, which reads, “Let us love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action.” Ideally, a president should care for his country and desire to defend the Constitution on his own accord, but if the president does not hold to these ideals, a written promise will not affect his heart attitude.

A written copy of the Constitution may not negatively effect the president’s ability to run the country, but it would not be a productive use of time.