What is the role of government

There are those that say the framework of the Constitution is not a living document, but I don't really agree.  I think the Constitution is far more flexible than some think.  It is obvious that the Supreme Court constantly changes the meaning of the document each time it writes an interpretation of what it says.  Since THEY have that power, self given, not given by the Constitution, than the document lives and changes with time.  Words hold no unchanging meaning, no matter how hard we pretend otherwise.  All you have to do is talk to the next generation of Americans to realize that words take on different meanings on a regular basis.

But the real test of what is the role of government comes down to the statement that all powers not given to the central government are held for the states and the people.  That does not say, nor can you truly interpret that it DOES say, that the states and the people can not give powers to the central government that they chose not to exercise.  And in this manner, the central government CAN and DOES take on powers that were once reserved for the states and people.

I think it would be a very difficult "sell" under any circumstances, however, to say that the Constitution can give the central government the right to jeopardize the lives of all Americans, alive or yet to be born, by adventurous wars overseas, or by actively instigating unrest in foreign countries.  It never gave the government the authority to wage war against Spain in the early 1900s, as an example, nor did it give the government the authority to wage wars on the European continent, in the middle east, in Asia, or in the Pacific.  Although the government may declare war, it can truly only be legitimate if the people have accepted it as the right thing to do at the time.  I don't even believe it should be declared by Congress without first giving the people the honest facts, and allowing them to demonstrate their desire.  Of course, that won't happen since Congress, as does the President, believes that they know better than the people and can better make decisions for the people.

Although I very much like the liberty and freedom that the Constitution gives us, I do recognize the fact that the government does have to take steps that we might not want.  However, those steps should never truly jeopardize the liberty and freedom we are given by God - by whatever name you chose to worship - and should impinge on those freedoms as little as possible.  I do not consider, as an example, Homeland Security, a farcical name at best, should exist as it is anything but a department whose intent is to secure the homeland, whatever that word signifies.  Its obvious intent from the beginning was to secure the central government from the people, and certainly, through the agency of some of its departments, it goes far in that direction - at a grievous cost to liberty and freedom.

Functionally, the concept of the Department of Education makes sense to me.  I truly believe that a nation comprised of multiple jurisdictions, such as the 50 states, needs a central government component to develop a guideline for the various states so that those educated in, say, Montana, are able to move to Georgia, as an  example, and have the necessary educational background to be successful there.  True, they might not have the same knowledge of state history, but they should expect to have an equivalent education in the normal curricula to be able to blend in.  I think that this might well be a "power" that the people and states might well give back to the central government for just that purpose.  However, there is no doubt that what we call the Department of Education has gone far beyond establishing a minimum curriculum to guarantee interchangeability, and has started dictating things that fall outside of what should reasonably be the extent of their power.

This topic will be continued at a later time and will cover more areas of control that the central government exercises that are probably outside of the Constitutional limits as well as those limits of what the people and states may have given back to it.

Who can judge?

One of the worst things that happens these days is how information is presented to us at any given time.  Is it just my imagination, or does it seem that we never actually get real information about anything any more?  That is, something happens - say a new tropical storm forms - and all you hear is opinions and judgments of what it is, where it is going, how strong it is, etc.  Now there are those that would say that is what forecasting is all about, but the problem is, typically, the information that you should be getting is salted in amongst things like comparison to some other storm that started at this time, or followed this track.  You don't get what you need to make your own decisions - judgments, if you will - because you are passed on the judgments of every person that reports the information, not just the facts.

When we look at religions, it is the same thing.  Climate?  Same thing.  World events?  ditto.  We don't get facts and raw data, we get judgments.  If you are looking at information about ice extent at the poles, you get judgments, not information half of the time.  "The ice extent in the Arctic has shrunk to the lowest amount in modern history" screams the story.  Is that information that you can judge by or is that a judgment with, actually, no information at all?  If you said the first, I think you are in real trouble, but if you realized it was the second, that means you still can think for yourself.

The first thing that catches my eye in a statement like that is what does it mean by modern history?  Are we talking about the the last 30 years of satellite data or are we talking about the last 200 years where people have visited the region, or exactly WHAT is modern history?  Did it start yesterday?  Last month?  Last year?  Last decade?  Last century?  Do I need to continue?  And of course, relative to what data set has it shrunk?  Against the total area, the thickness, total volume?  These could easily yield confusing and conflicting data.  Information needs to be defined, offered clearly without prejudice, and then WE can judge it for ourselves.

This process should apply to everything we see, really.  Should we be passed "judgments" by those reporting, say, what is happening in Iran regards its nuclear program, or should we require real data to support the statements being made?  The same for the consulate attack in Libya.  Or the run up to war in Syria.  Or anything else that you can think of.  Perhaps we should have been passed facts in the so called presidential debates instead of "judgments" by the media as to who should be running.  Too often, we are passed judgments, not information, and because of that, we are a poorer informed nation than we should be.  And that probably applies to every other nation as well.  All I ever ask of the media is to give me unprejudiced information so that I can conclude for myself - God DID give me a brain, too, you know - and should you wish to write a conclusion to your report, that is fine, but say "in my opinion this means" instead of presenting that opinion as if it was a fact.