Article II

[∞∞∞]

The Industrial Age had little to do with corporations, it's just a name for the transition of hand-tools to machine-powered tools. I skipped over that statement 'cause it started before the US was established.

Are we talking charters for railroad and steel companies? Both those were considered public benefits, and most were companies, not corporations.

Wtf? We existed in the late 1700s when the IR started. Established as what, exactly? We weren’t a loose collection of colonies with NOTHING in common in the 1760s. The First IR is roughly 1760-1840. The colony of South Carolina was 100 yrs old when it began. Virginia even older. The Second IR began after the Civil War. I’m quite certain we were established then. You speak as if there was zero manufacturing occurring in the US pre-1760 or that we simply didn’t exist then.

You may want to read about where it began. In a small part of the world called the UK. And where did the U.K implement the technological improvements that it had discovered?

“Established”? Give me a break. That’s one of the most intellectually dishonest things you’ve ever said.

I'm on your side. Read the argument again.

I skipped GF's argument about the industrial revolution 'cause I already said that the founding fathers were fearful of corporations, and states (and colonies) established corporate charters to protect the public. At that point the IR was well under way, so I'm not sure what GF was referring to (thus me asking if he's confusing the IR with the establishment of large rail and steel companies between the Revolution and Gilded age).

The industrial revolution does not equal large corporations, which is what GF seems to imply. It was literally just a transition of how things were done.

I'll give you that the "established" wording isn't great, but I think you read a little too much into it.

[GannonFan]

Wtf? We existed in the late 1700s when the IR started. Established as what, exactly? We weren’t a loose collection of colonies with NOTHING in common in the 1760s. The First IR is roughly 1760-1840. The colony of South Carolina was 100 yrs old when it began. Virginia even older. The Second IR began after the Civil War. I’m quite certain we were established then. You speak as if there was zero manufacturing occurring in the US pre-1760 or that we simply didn’t exist then.

You may want to read about where it began. In a small part of the world called the UK. And where did the U.K implement the technological improvements that it had discovered?

“Established”? Give me a break. That’s one of the most intellectually dishonest things you’ve ever said.

I'm on your side. Read the argument again.

I skipped GF's argument about the industrial revolution 'cause I already said that the founding fathers were fearful of corporations, and states (and colonies) established corporate charters to protect the public. At that point the IR was well under way, so I'm not sure what GF was referring to (thus me asking if he's confusing the IR with the establishment of large rail and steel companies between the Revolution and Gilded age).

The industrial revolution does not equal large corporations, which is what GF seems to imply. It was literally just a transition of how things were done.

I'll give you that the "established" wording isn't great, but I think you read a little too much into it.

Of course you skipped it. Being wrong sucks, so best to avoid it and pretend it didn't happen. Stay in your bubble, there you can always be correct.

[∞∞∞]

Of course you skipped it. Being wrong sucks, so best to avoid it and pretend it didn't happen. Stay in your bubble, there you can always be correct.

Yes, acknowledging your statement (twice) is ignoring it.

I already asked you to clarify.

Anyways, we're so far off the argument it doesn't really matter. Main point is that early Americans including many of the founding fathers feared corporate influence on individual rights. People (aka. government) have always been involved in protecting themselves, and that's how it should be.

[kalm]

Of course you skipped it. Being wrong sucks, so best to avoid it and pretend it didn't happen. Stay in your bubble, there you can always be correct.

Yes, acknowledging your statement (twice) is ignoring it.

I already asked you to clarify.

Anyways, we're so far off the argument it doesn't really matter. Main point is that early Americans including many of the founding fathers feared corporate influence on individual rights. People (aka. government) have always been involved in protecting themselves, and that's how it should be.

That appears to be the case.

And for good reason as has been proven historically and is certainly being proven today.

On December 20th, 1787, Jefferson wrote to James Madison about his concerns regarding the Constitution. He said, bluntly, that it was deficient in several areas. “I will now tell you what I do not like,” he wrote. “First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land, and not by the laws of nations.”

Such a bill protecting natural persons from out-of-control governments or commercial monopolies shouldn’t just be limited to America, Jefferson believed. “Let me add,” he summarized, “that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

The following year, Jefferson wrote about his concerns to several people. In a letter to Mr. A. Donald, on February 7th, 1788, he defined the items that should be in a bill of rights: “By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil, which no honest government should decline.”

Jefferson kept pushing for a law, written into the constitution as an amendment, which would guarantee liberties for citizens, prevent companies from growing so large they could dominate entire industries or have the power to influence the people’s government, and reduce the possibility of the nation being taken over by a military coup.

On February 12th, 1788, he wrote to Mr. Dumas about his pleasure that the US Constitution was about to be ratified, but also expressed his concerns about what was missing from the Constitution. He was pushing hard for his own state to reject the Constitution if it didn’t protect people from the dangers he foresaw.

“With respect to the new Government,” he wrote, “nine or ten States will probably have accepted by the end of this month. The others may oppose it. Virginia, I think, will be of this number. Besides other objections of less moment, she [Virginia] will insist on annexing a bill of rights to the new Constitution, i.e. a bill wherein the Government shall declare that, 1. Religion shall be free; 2. Printing presses free; 3. Trials by jury preserved in all cases; 4. No monopolies in commerce; 5. No standing army. Upon receiving this bill of rights, she will probably depart from her other objections; and this bill is so much to the interest of all the States, that I presume they will offer it, and thus our Constitution be amended, and our Union closed by the end of the present year.”

By mid-summer of 1788, things were moving along and Jefferson was helping his close friend James Madison to write the Bill of Rights. On the last day of July, he wrote to Madison: “I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine States. It is a good canvass, on which some strokes only want retouching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from north to south, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood, that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion, and monopolies.”

https://www.thomhartmann.com/articles/2 ... personhood

[Ivytalk]

Yet the Bill of Rights says precisely nothing about monopolies. We had to wait until the Sherman Act (1890) to address that.

[kalm]

Yet the Bill of Rights says precisely nothing about monopolies. We had to wait until the Sherman Act (1890) to address that.

And?

[∞∞∞]

Yet the Bill of Rights says precisely nothing about monopolies. We had to wait until the Sherman Act (1890) to address that.

I don't know about monopolies, but regarding corporations, early Americans did struggle between banning them or using them within the confines of independence. In the end, they decided corporations should be entities which provided a public good and that's how they solved the issue.

Then states proceeded to establish strong protections against the accumulation of wealth to the point of influential powers in Government. It wasn't perfect, but something Americans could build upon.

Then we f*cked it up, got back on track, then f*cked it up again. There's a reason this era is being called the "Second Gilded Age". But hey, another thing younger generations are gonna have to fix.

Maybe you'll live long enough to see the "Second New Deal." It'll be different, but similar in spirit.

[Ivytalk]

Yet the Bill of Rights says precisely nothing about monopolies. We had to wait until the Sherman Act (1890) to address that.

And?

Do I have to tell you everything?

[Ivytalk]

Yet the Bill of Rights says precisely nothing about monopolies. We had to wait until the Sherman Act (1890) to address that.

I don't know about monopolies, but regarding corporations, early Americans did struggle between banning them or using them within the confines of independence. In the end, they decided corporations should be entities which provided a public good and that's how they solved the issue.

Then states proceeded to establish strong protections against the accumulation of wealth to the point of influential powers in Government. It wasn't perfect, but something Americans could build upon.

Then we f*cked it up, got back on track, then f*cked it up again. There's a reason this era is being called the "Second Gilded Age". But hey, another thing younger generations are gonna have to fix.

Maybe you'll live long enough to see the "Second New Deal." It'll be different, but similar in spirit.

Hard to respond to this, because there’s no time line. Most legal scholars point to the late 19th century as an era of liberalization of corporate law, particularly in terms of corporate power and authority. New Jersey and Delaware were the trailblazers. That era continues today. To the extent people want to require corporations to consider the interests of some constituency other than their owners, we now have something called benefit corporations (B corps). Do you have any post-1787 authority for your blanket conclusion about states’ “strong protections against the accumulation of wealth”? If so, I’d like to see it.

[Ivytalk]

And?

Do I have to tell you everything?

I was responding to your lengthy quote from a screed by a leading opponent of the concept of “corporate personhood” (you’ll never stop, will you? ) about the purported concerns of Mister Jefferson about monopolies. Those concerns were addressed only by statute, not by the Constitution, about 65 years after his death.

[kalm]

Do I have to tell you everything?

I was responding to your lengthy quote from a screed by a leading opponent of the concept of “corporate personhood” (you’ll never stop, will you? ) about the purported concerns of Mister Jefferson about monopolies. Those concerns were addressed only by statute, not by the Constitution, about 65 years after his death.

Ok I’ll shorten for you.

It supports the idea that at least Jefferson (and I’m pretty sure a few others) had concerns over entrenched power (corporatism/monopoly).

Since there’s a current movement afoot it’s a response to “amend or stfu”.

[Ivytalk]

I was responding to your lengthy quote from a screed by a leading opponent of the concept of “corporate personhood” (you’ll never stop, will you? ) about the purported concerns of Mister Jefferson about monopolies. Those concerns were addressed only by statute, not by the Constitution, about 65 years after his death.

Ok I’ll shorten for you.

It supports the idea that at least Jefferson (and I’m pretty sure a few others) had concerns over entrenched power (corporatism/monopoly).

Since there’s a current movement afoot it’s a response to “amend or stfu”.

A “current movement afoot”...spearheaded by a radio talker with a Ph.D. In homeopathy!

[kalm]

Ok I’ll shorten for you.

It supports the idea that at least Jefferson (and I’m pretty sure a few others) had concerns over entrenched power (corporatism/monopoly).

Since there’s a current movement afoot it’s a response to “amend or stfu”.

A “current movement afoot”...spearheaded by a radio talker with a Ph.D. In homeopathy!

16 states have now passed resolutions to amend including your own. Your buddy, Larry Lessig is heavily involved along with numerous progressive and even a few conservative politicians. It’s a start.

That Hartmann article was from 2001. He’s also a successful entrepreneur, started up several businesses, founded a school for special needs and abused kids and did ground breaking work along with an Australian neuroscientist on ADHD back in the 90’s.

But yeah...he’s also a dirty hippy so shoot the messenger rather than tell me what he got wrong in the article and then go crawl back into your safe space.

[UNI88]

Yes, acknowledging your statement (twice) is ignoring it.

I already asked you to clarify.

Anyways, we're so far off the argument it doesn't really matter. Main point is that early Americans including many of the founding fathers feared corporate influence on individual rights. People (aka. government) have always been involved in protecting themselves, and that's how it should be.

That appears to be the case.

And for good reason as has been proven historically and is certainly being proven today.

On December 20th, 1787, Jefferson wrote to James Madison about his concerns regarding the Constitution. He said, bluntly, that it was deficient in several areas. “I will now tell you what I do not like,” he wrote. “First, the omission of a bill of rights, providing clearly, and without the aid of sophism, for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land, and not by the laws of nations.”

Such a bill protecting natural persons from out-of-control governments or commercial monopolies shouldn’t just be limited to America, Jefferson believed. “Let me add,” he summarized, “that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

The following year, Jefferson wrote about his concerns to several people. In a letter to Mr. A. Donald, on February 7th, 1788, he defined the items that should be in a bill of rights: “By a declaration of rights, I mean one which shall stipulate freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce against monopolies, trial by juries in all cases, no suspensions of the habeas corpus, no standing armies. These are fetters against doing evil, which no honest government should decline.”

Jefferson kept pushing for a law, written into the constitution as an amendment, which would guarantee liberties for citizens, prevent companies from growing so large they could dominate entire industries or have the power to influence the people’s government, and reduce the possibility of the nation being taken over by a military coup.

On February 12th, 1788, he wrote to Mr. Dumas about his pleasure that the US Constitution was about to be ratified, but also expressed his concerns about what was missing from the Constitution. He was pushing hard for his own state to reject the Constitution if it didn’t protect people from the dangers he foresaw.

“With respect to the new Government,” he wrote, “nine or ten States will probably have accepted by the end of this month. The others may oppose it. Virginia, I think, will be of this number. Besides other objections of less moment, she [Virginia] will insist on annexing a bill of rights to the new Constitution, i.e. a bill wherein the Government shall declare that, 1. Religion shall be free; 2. Printing presses free; 3. Trials by jury preserved in all cases; 4. No monopolies in commerce; 5. No standing army. Upon receiving this bill of rights, she will probably depart from her other objections; and this bill is so much to the interest of all the States, that I presume they will offer it, and thus our Constitution be amended, and our Union closed by the end of the present year.”

By mid-summer of 1788, things were moving along and Jefferson was helping his close friend James Madison to write the Bill of Rights. On the last day of July, he wrote to Madison: “I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine States. It is a good canvass, on which some strokes only want retouching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from north to south, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood, that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion, and monopolies.”

https://www.thomhartmann.com/articles/2 ... personhood

While Jefferson was concerned with commercial monopolies he was just as concerned with out-of-control government.

"Such a bill protecting natural persons from out-of-control governments or commercial monopolies shouldn’t just be limited to America"

Trip's answer to commercial monopolies is a bigger and eventually out-of-control government.

Main point is that early Americans including many of the founding fathers feared corporate influence on individual rights. People (aka. government) have always been involved in protecting themselves, and that's how it should be.

You don't like corporate personhood, Trip is advocating for government personhood. The government should represent people but it is not people. It should be involved in providing regulations to protect people from monopolies and other threats (the EPA and OSHA are good examples) but we should be mindful of the threat of government itself. Excessive bureaucracy, regulations or taxation are just as bad as none.

We have more than enough government and in reality, need to pare it down and focus it on what is important not make it bigger and more byzantine.

I don't disagree with your concerns about corporate influence but I am more concerned about excessive government. I have more faith in the impartiality of a truly competitive market than I do in any government much less Trip's socialist government that will focus on equal outcomes (I'm on record as being all for equal opportunities), stifle ingenuity and create a class of government elite that is worse than today's corporate elite.

[LeadBolt]

Unfortunately the people does not equal the government at this point in history.

The government has become much worse than any corporate influence that Jefferson feared.

His statement that the tree of liberty needs to be renewed from time to time with the blood of patriots, while not all the way there is closer to the current situation than the government = the people.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

That appears to be the case.

And for good reason as has been proven historically and is certainly being proven today.



https://www.thomhartmann.com/articles/2 ... personhood

While Jefferson was concerned with commercial monopolies he was just as concerned with out-of-control government.

"Such a bill protecting natural persons from out-of-control governments or commercial monopolies shouldn’t just be limited to America"

Trip's answer to commercial monopolies is a bigger and eventually out-of-control government.

Main point is that early Americans including many of the founding fathers feared corporate influence on individual rights. People (aka. government) have always been involved in protecting themselves, and that's how it should be.

You don't like corporate personhood, Trip is advocating for government personhood. The government should represent people but it is not people. It should be involved in providing regulations to protect people from monopolies and other threats (the EPA and OSHA are good examples) but we should be mindful of the threat of government itself. Excessive bureaucracy, regulations and taxation are just as bad as none.

We have more than enough government and in reality, need to pare it down and focus it on what is important not make it bigger and more byzantine.

I don't disagree with your concerns about corporate influence but I am more concerned about excessive government. I have more faith in the impartiality of a truly competitive market than I do in any government much less Trip's socialist government that will focus on equal outcomes (I'm on record as being all for equal opportunities), stifle ingenuity and create a class of government elite that is worse than today's corporate elite.

I had this debate with Joltinjoe years ago regarding the Bundy Ranch and whether public lands they were using belonged to the people or the government. He thought they belonged to the government. I disagreed. Those are the people's lands, managed by the government which is an extension of the people. He did a poor job of convincing me otherwise right down to the point where he resorted to hurling "directional school" insults.
But it's still an interesting concept whether government is "of" the people.

I do appreciate and share your concern for government overreach. Someday I'll be able to tell you all a personal experience along those lines.

IMO, a larger threat than either liberty crushing government or liberty crushing corporations is of course the combination of the two which is exactly what we currently have. I believe in the market and want less government as well. I just want better government that isn't corrupt.

[AZGrizFan]

While Jefferson was concerned with commercial monopolies he was just as concerned with out-of-control government.

"Such a bill protecting natural persons from out-of-control governments or commercial monopolies shouldn’t just be limited to America"

Trip's answer to commercial monopolies is a bigger and eventually out-of-control government.



You don't like corporate personhood, Trip is advocating for government personhood. The government should represent people but it is not people. It should be involved in providing regulations to protect people from monopolies and other threats (the EPA and OSHA are good examples) but we should be mindful of the threat of government itself. Excessive bureaucracy, regulations and taxation are just as bad as none.

We have more than enough government and in reality, need to pare it down and focus it on what is important not make it bigger and more byzantine.

I don't disagree with your concerns about corporate influence but I am more concerned about excessive government. I have more faith in the impartiality of a truly competitive market than I do in any government much less Trip's socialist government that will focus on equal outcomes (I'm on record as being all for equal opportunities), stifle ingenuity and create a class of government elite that is worse than today's corporate elite.

I had this debate with Joltinjoe years ago regarding the Bundy Ranch and whether public lands they were using belonged to the people or the government. He thought they belonged to the government. I disagreed. Those are the people's lands, managed by the government which is an extension of the people. He did a poor job of convincing me otherwise right down to the point where he resorted to hurling "directional school" insults.
But it's still an interesting concept whether government is "of" the people.

I do appreciate and share your concern for government overreach. Someday I'll be able to tell you all a personal experience along those lines.

IMO, a larger threat than either liberty crushing government or liberty crushing corporations is of course the combination of the two which is exactly what we currently have. I believe in the market and want less government as well. I just want better government that isn't corrupt.

Not sure how he felt he had any semblance of an argument there. They’re called “public” lands for a reason. The government doesn’t/shouldn’t actually OWN anything. They can manage it, sure, but owning it is another thing altogether.

[Ivytalk]

A “current movement afoot”...spearheaded by a radio talker with a Ph.D. In homeopathy!

16 states have now passed resolutions to amend including your own. Your buddy, Larry Lessig is heavily involved along with numerous progressive and even a few conservative politicians. It’s a start.

That Hartmann article was from 2001. He’s also a successful entrepreneur, started up several businesses, founded a school for special needs and abused kids and did ground breaking work along with an Australian neuroscientist on ADHD back in the 90’s.

But yeah...he’s also a dirty hippy so shoot the messenger rather than tell me what he got wrong in the article and then go crawl back into your safe space.

Article V convention resolutions are a dime a dozen. This one won’t happen, either. Only five states (VT, CA, IL, RI, and NJ) have asked for one with respect to Citizens United/corporate personhood, and DE isn’t among them.

[UNI88]

While Jefferson was concerned with commercial monopolies he was just as concerned with out-of-control government.

"Such a bill protecting natural persons from out-of-control governments or commercial monopolies shouldn’t just be limited to America"

Trip's answer to commercial monopolies is a bigger and eventually out-of-control government.

You don't like corporate personhood, Trip is advocating for government personhood. The government should represent people but it is not people. It should be involved in providing regulations to protect people from monopolies and other threats (the EPA and OSHA are good examples) but we should be mindful of the threat of government itself. Excessive bureaucracy, regulations or taxation are just as bad as none.

We have more than enough government and in reality, need to pare it down and focus it on what is important not make it bigger and more byzantine.

I don't disagree with your concerns about corporate influence but I am more concerned about excessive government. I have more faith in the impartiality of a truly competitive market than I do in any government much less Trip's socialist government that will focus on equal outcomes (I'm on record as being all for equal opportunities), stifle ingenuity and create a class of government elite that is worse than today's corporate elite.

I had this debate with Joltinjoe years ago regarding the Bundy Ranch and whether public lands they were using belonged to the people or the government. He thought they belonged to the government. I disagreed. Those are the people's lands, managed by the government which is an extension of the people. He did a poor job of convincing me otherwise right down to the point where he resorted to hurling "directional school" insults.
But it's still an interesting concept whether government is "of" the people.

I do appreciate and share your concern for government overreach. Someday I'll be able to tell you all a personal experience along those lines.

IMO, a larger threat than either liberty crushing government or liberty crushing corporations is of course the combination of the two which is exactly what we currently have. I believe in the market and want less government as well. I just want better government that isn't corrupt.

We agree that "larger threat than either liberty crushing government or liberty crushing corporations is of course the combination of the two which is exactly what we currently have." Unfortunately, this isn't some new phenomenon. It might have gotten worse under Trump but GM, Comcast, Solyndra, Elon Musk, etc. show that it has been around for a while and continues to grow.

I'm with you and AZ on who the lands belong to.

[kalm]

I had this debate with Joltinjoe years ago regarding the Bundy Ranch and whether public lands they were using belonged to the people or the government. He thought they belonged to the government. I disagreed. Those are the people's lands, managed by the government which is an extension of the people. He did a poor job of convincing me otherwise right down to the point where he resorted to hurling "directional school" insults.
But it's still an interesting concept whether government is "of" the people.

I do appreciate and share your concern for government overreach. Someday I'll be able to tell you all a personal experience along those lines.

IMO, a larger threat than either liberty crushing government or liberty crushing corporations is of course the combination of the two which is exactly what we currently have. I believe in the market and want less government as well. I just want better government that isn't corrupt.

We agree that "larger threat than either liberty crushing government or liberty crushing corporations is of course the combination of the two which is exactly what we currently have." Unfortunately, this isn't some new phenomenon. It might have gotten worse under Trump but GM, Comcast, Solyndra, Elon Musk, etc. show that it has been around for a while and continues to grow.

I'm with you and AZ on who the lands belong to.

Oh I totally agree with this. It’s not a Trump thing. His most honest moment ever was in the debates saying how he’d given money to everyone else on the stage. And the modern Democratic Party is atrociously guilty of it as well.

[kalm]

I had this debate with Joltinjoe years ago regarding the Bundy Ranch and whether public lands they were using belonged to the people or the government. He thought they belonged to the government. I disagreed. Those are the people's lands, managed by the government which is an extension of the people. He did a poor job of convincing me otherwise right down to the point where he resorted to hurling "directional school" insults.
But it's still an interesting concept whether government is "of" the people.

I do appreciate and share your concern for government overreach. Someday I'll be able to tell you all a personal experience along those lines.

IMO, a larger threat than either liberty crushing government or liberty crushing corporations is of course the combination of the two which is exactly what we currently have. I believe in the market and want less government as well. I just want better government that isn't corrupt.

Not sure how he felt he had any semblance of an argument there. They’re called “public” lands for a reason. The government doesn’t/shouldn’t actually OWN anything. They can manage it, sure, but owning it is another thing altogether.

That was my initial take. But in fairness to JJ, the argument devolved into whether government is separate from the people. He made some decent points there among repeatedly going to the well of something, something Fordham U and the classes he’s taught on government.

[kalm]

16 states have now passed resolutions to amend including your own. Your buddy, Larry Lessig is heavily involved along with numerous progressive and even a few conservative politicians. It’s a start.

That Hartmann article was from 2001. He’s also a successful entrepreneur, started up several businesses, founded a school for special needs and abused kids and did ground breaking work along with an Australian neuroscientist on ADHD back in the 90’s.

But yeah...he’s also a dirty hippy so shoot the messenger rather than tell me what he got wrong in the article and then go crawl back into your safe space.

Article V convention resolutions are a dime a dozen. This one won’t happen, either. Only five states (VT, CA, IL, RI, and NJ) have asked for one with respect to Citizens United/corporate personhood, and DE isn’t among them.

Listen Mr. Party Pooper...I have an establishment to overthrow and I don’t have time for your negativity and facts...

[AZGrizFan]

Not sure how he felt he had any semblance of an argument there. They’re called “public” lands for a reason. The government doesn’t/shouldn’t actually OWN anything. They can manage it, sure, but owning it is another thing altogether.

That was my initial take. But in fairness to JJ, the argument devolved into whether government is separate from the people. He made some decent points there among repeatedly going to the well of something, something Fordham U and the classes he’s taught on government.

Blah blah blah.....doesn’t change the fact they belong to the public, with the Government as stewards.

[JohnStOnge]

Guys. Back to the topic at hand: We have allowed the Presidency too much power and too little accountability. The President has more power than the Constitution gave him or her and less accountability than the Constitution gave him or her now. We need to put the Presidency back into the box it belongs in.

[AZGrizFan]

Guys. Back to the topic at hand: We have allowed the Presidency too much power and too little accountability. The President has more power than the Constitution gave him or her and less accountability than the Constitution gave him or her now. We need to put the Presidency back into the box it belongs in.

Why now? Why not 3 years ago? Or 5? Or 10? You’ve been on this board 10 years, and it’s the first time this article has ever been a concern for you?