All powerful BUT limited Federal Government

[RetiredGySgt]

That was the INTENT of the Founders and the PEOPLE of this Country. The Constitution is clear as are the DESIRES of those that drafted it and passed it. We have tons of material to support this reality. From the framers, From the people.

The Bill of Rights was the will of the people to ENSURE a limit on the Federal Government. Even though the Founders pointed out that ONLY those powers SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution were granted to the Federal Government.

There is no General welfare clause that grants any and all power to the Federal Government. If there were the 10th Amendment would be pointless as would the words of the people that WROTE and supported the Constitution. It simply grants the power to use taxes to the Federal Government when using the listed powers of the Federal Government.

Anyone that claims otherwise is ignorant of the facts and history of this Country, the Bill of Rights, the intent of the framers and the Constitution itself.

 

[Intense]

That was the INTENT of the Founders and the PEOPLE of this Country. The Constitution is clear as are the DESIRES of those that drafted it and passed it. We have tons of material to support this reality. From the framers, From the people.

The Bill of Rights was the will of the people to ENSURE a limit on the Federal Government. Even though the Founders pointed out that ONLY those powers SPECIFICALLY listed in the Constitution were granted to the Federal Government.

There is no General welfare clause that grants any and all power to the Federal Government. If there were the 10th Amendment would be pointless as would the words of the people that WROTE and supported the Constitution. It simply grants the power to use taxes to the Federal Government when using the listed powers of the Federal Government.

Anyone that claims otherwise is ignorant of the facts and history of this Country, the Bill of Rights, the intent of the framers and the Constitution itself.

Hamilton and Marshal changed that after Ratification. Funny how those so called principles those arguments were rooted in were not addresses in the Constitutional Convention. Why? It would not have Passed.
The con:
Enumerated Powers.
General Welfare.
Limits to the Power of Judicial Review.
Commerce Clause.

 

[zzzz]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

You really WANT a Constitutional Convention? You realize one can trash the old Constitution and create something completely different?

The PROCESS for change to the current Constitution is NOT to simply claim 200 years later it does not mean what we know it meant but to CREATE and PASS an amendment to said Document. You want Social security and the US Fed to pay for welfare? CREATE AN AMENDMENT and PASS it. You want the Fed to run Medical for everyone? CREATE AND PASS AN AMENDMENT.

 

[DiamondDave]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

You really WANT a Constitutional Convention? You realize one can trash the old Constitution and create something completely different?

The PROCESS for change to the current Constitution is NOT to simply claim 200 years later it does not mean what we know it meant but to CREATE and PASS an amendment to said Document. You want Social security and the US Fed to pay for welfare? CREATE AN AMENDMENT and PASS it. You want the Fed to run Medical for everyone? CREATE AND PASS AN AMENDMENT.

That is the key and that is the very process that has been thwarted by our power hungry government

 

[rightwinger]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

The founding fathers had no concept of what government policies would be needed to run a 21st century economic and military superpower. They envisioned an agrarian society with a dispersed population and limited communications and transportation

The constitution, as it stands today, provides more freedom for its citizens and a government more capable of operating on a global scale

 

[VaYank5150]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

You really WANT a Constitutional Convention? You realize one can trash the old Constitution and create something completely different?

The PROCESS for change to the current Constitution is NOT to simply claim 200 years later it does not mean what we know it meant but to CREATE and PASS an amendment to said Document. You want Social security and the US Fed to pay for welfare? CREATE AN AMENDMENT and PASS it. You want the Fed to run Medical for everyone? CREATE AND PASS AN AMENDMENT.

So, based on your interpretation, we are in no way bound to protect our allies with military bases and equippage outside of our own borders, right? I only ask because I was once told by "someone" on these boards that we HAVE to maintain our bases overseas due to treaties and alliances we have formed with other countries.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

You really WANT a Constitutional Convention? You realize one can trash the old Constitution and create something completely different?

The PROCESS for change to the current Constitution is NOT to simply claim 200 years later it does not mean what we know it meant but to CREATE and PASS an amendment to said Document. You want Social security and the US Fed to pay for welfare? CREATE AN AMENDMENT and PASS it. You want the Fed to run Medical for everyone? CREATE AND PASS AN AMENDMENT.

So, based on your interpretation, we are in no way bound to protect our allies with military bases and equippage outside of our own borders, right? I only ask because I was once told by "someone" on these boards that we HAVE to maintain our bases overseas due to treaties and alliances we have formed with other countries.

I am ALWAYS amazed at the abject IGNORANCE of some people. Treaties and Binding agreements on alliances are COVERED in the Constitution you dumb ass. And yes we have to live up to our Formal and approved Agreements.

Tell you what, if you want to be taken credibly in a conversation about the Constitution, you really should learn what it says.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

You really WANT a Constitutional Convention? You realize one can trash the old Constitution and create something completely different?

The PROCESS for change to the current Constitution is NOT to simply claim 200 years later it does not mean what we know it meant but to CREATE and PASS an amendment to said Document. You want Social security and the US Fed to pay for welfare? CREATE AN AMENDMENT and PASS it. You want the Fed to run Medical for everyone? CREATE AND PASS AN AMENDMENT.

That is the key and that is the very process that has been thwarted by our power hungry government

Just look at NY... Emperor Mike is so fixated on cookies, fats and salt, he can't even plow the streets.

Fucking hilarious. Gotta love the Nanny Staters.... can't get shit done of any import, but by God you'll know what's in that cookie!

 

[VaYank5150]

You really WANT a Constitutional Convention? You realize one can trash the old Constitution and create something completely different?

The PROCESS for change to the current Constitution is NOT to simply claim 200 years later it does not mean what we know it meant but to CREATE and PASS an amendment to said Document. You want Social security and the US Fed to pay for welfare? CREATE AN AMENDMENT and PASS it. You want the Fed to run Medical for everyone? CREATE AND PASS AN AMENDMENT.

So, based on your interpretation, we are in no way bound to protect our allies with military bases and equippage outside of our own borders, right? I only ask because I was once told by "someone" on these boards that we HAVE to maintain our bases overseas due to treaties and alliances we have formed with other countries.

I am ALWAYS amazed at the abject IGNORANCE of some people. Treaties and Binding agreements on alliances are COVERED in the Constitution you dumb ass. And yes we have to live up to our Formal and approved Agreements.

Tell you what, if you want to be taken credibly in a conversation about the Constitution, you really should learn what it says.

Treaties and alliances with foreign nations are covered in the Constitution? Where?

 

[The T]

So, based on your interpretation, we are in no way bound to protect our allies with military bases and equippage outside of our own borders, right? I only ask because I was once told by "someone" on these boards that we HAVE to maintain our bases overseas due to treaties and alliances we have formed with other countries.

I am ALWAYS amazed at the abject IGNORANCE of some people. Treaties and Binding agreements on alliances are COVERED in the Constitution you dumb ass. And yes we have to live up to our Formal and approved Agreements.

Tell you what, if you want to be taken credibly in a conversation about the Constitution, you really should learn what it says.

Treaties and alliances with foreign nations are covered in the Constitution? Where?

Article 2, Section 2...

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

__________________________________

 

[VaYank5150]

Thank you for this The T. Obviously, I had already read this, and was confused as to how RetiredGySgt interprets that to mean that our Constitution covers paying for military bases, personnel and equippage across the globe? While treaties are mentioned and authorized by 2/2, it in no way ties the American taxpayer to paying for the United States to be the Global police that we have become. No one in their right mind can claim that our Founding Fathers thought this would be a grand idea. Right?

 

[The T]

Thank you for this The T. Obviously, I had already read this, and was confused as to how RetiredGySgt interprets that to mean that our Constitution covers paying for military bases, personnel and equippage across the globe? While treaties are mentioned and authorized by 2/2, it in no way ties the American taxpayer to paying for the United States to be the Global police that we have become. No one in their right mind can claim that our Founding Fathers thought this would be a grand idea. Right?

That is in effect a treaty/agreement of sorts with the host country. Such as NATO...Which we are a member of by agreement...

So I think your beef is with the funding of these places to begin with. I'm sure that somewhere that agreement must be updated/renewed from time to time...Maybe in your own way? You are objecting to the agreements we have to begin with and perhaps want any renewals stopped and the ground we occupy overseas by these agreements vacated and the personnel brought home?

True?

 

[VaYank5150]

Thank you for this The T. Obviously, I had already read this, and was confused as to how RetiredGySgt interprets that to mean that our Constitution covers paying for military bases, personnel and equippage across the globe? While treaties are mentioned and authorized by 2/2, it in no way ties the American taxpayer to paying for the United States to be the Global police that we have become. No one in their right mind can claim that our Founding Fathers thought this would be a grand idea. Right?

That is in effect a treaty/agreement of sorts with the host country. Such as NATO...Which we are a member of by agreement...

So I think your beef is with the funding of these places to begin with. I'm sure that somewhere that agreement must be updated/renewed from time to time...Maybe in your own way? You are objecting to the agreements we have to begin with and perhaps want any renewals stopped and the ground we occupy overseas by these agreements vacated and the personnel brought home?

True?

I believe we need to look at or foreign bases on an individual basis. What are we doing there. Do we need to be there? If so, why? Who benefits the most from our presence? Who is paying for us to be there? My guess is WE are the sole owners of the financial burden for our foreign presence, yet that very presence allows other countries to flourish at our expense. Was that the intent of placing our military there in the first place?

MANY questions. But, ones that I feel need to be answered. It is OUR money after all. Right?

 

[The T]

Thank you for this The T. Obviously, I had already read this, and was confused as to how RetiredGySgt interprets that to mean that our Constitution covers paying for military bases, personnel and equippage across the globe? While treaties are mentioned and authorized by 2/2, it in no way ties the American taxpayer to paying for the United States to be the Global police that we have become. No one in their right mind can claim that our Founding Fathers thought this would be a grand idea. Right?

That is in effect a treaty/agreement of sorts with the host country. Such as NATO...Which we are a member of by agreement...

So I think your beef is with the funding of these places to begin with. I'm sure that somewhere that agreement must be updated/renewed from time to time...Maybe in your own way? You are objecting to the agreements we have to begin with and perhaps want any renewals stopped and the ground we occupy overseas by these agreements vacated and the personnel brought home?

True?

I believe we need to look at or foreign bases on an individual basis. What are we doing there. Do we need to be there? If so, why? Who benefits the most from our presence? Who is paying for us to be there? My guess is WE are the sole owners of the financial burden for our foreign presence, yet that very presence allows other countries to flourish at our expense. Was that the intent of placing our military there in the first place?

MANY questions. But, ones that I feel need to be answered. It is OUR money after all. Right?

Then do some reseach, and burn up the switchboard of your Senator and REP to halt what you don't like. After all? They represent you do they not?

 

[Avatar4321]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

The founding fathers had no concept of what government policies would be needed to run a 21st century economic and military superpower. They envisioned an agrarian society with a dispersed population and limited communications and transportation

The constitution, as it stands today, provides more freedom for its citizens and a government more capable of operating on a global scale

They sure as heck did. After all, it was their actions that created it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Treaties can be made and broken. If we dont like one, we can break it. We can renegotiate it. Times change. Treaties need to as well.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

Why a constitutional convention....what happened to the amendment process?

 

[The T]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

The founding fathers had no concept of what government policies would be needed to run a 21st century economic and military superpower. They envisioned an agrarian society with a dispersed population and limited communications and transportation

The constitution, as it stands today, provides more freedom for its citizens and a government more capable of operating on a global scale

They sure as heck did. After all, it was their actions that created it.

That was a striking statement, wasn't it? So by RW's reckoning? Since the document was adopted in the late 1700's with the Founders no way knowing the future?

The entire exercise is hereby null and void, and must be scrapped. (Well it might as well be since so many end-around runs have been made to circumvent it with largely no protest [other than the Civil War]), why not just ignore it?

The people bear alot of blame for letting things get this far. Hopefully we have begun the process of putting on the brakes to backtrack before we fall into the abyss?

 

[The T]

To get a constitution a lot of compromises had to be done. But they included provisons to change the constitution because they recognized a changing world. What the founders wanted was a constitution that would grow with the country not one that was made in stone. That is what we have today, a constitution that has evolved and yes absorbed several areas that some states view as their own. But the founders creation has worked and evolved and survived through these few centuries. The states have an avenue to get those rights back and that is a constituional convention. None have tried it yet, why?

Why a constitutional convention....what happened to the amendment process?

It's easier to short-circuit it as is being done now by legislation.
You and a few others have asked the proper question about the Amendment process.

The reson why is that our electeds don't want to. Their agendas are too important, and following the process would take up too much time.