Anyone remember the election in 2006?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Such a statement is laughable.

If that were true, we would not be a Republic.

Our education system really sucks.

You don't even know what qualifies us as being a Republic?

Are you drunk ?

And while you are showing me how you are smarter than Madison, why don't you explain the purpose behind our current electoral system...or why Senators (1/2 of congress) were originally appointed by the states.

I look forward to it.

not yet.

I support the electoral college system. I also support the amendment that opened the way for the popular election of the upper chamber.

I support the US Constitution as a pretty good document, flaws and all.

I think our system of government is doing just fine. I think the process of governing, which the major parties and the US House and US Senate control, is in trouble.

Money and power corrupts, but only people vote. When we abrogate our duty to be involved in the process of elections and governing we cede authority to money and an Oligarchy.

The system is fine, the process has been corrupted.

 

[Listening]

attempt to refute one statement in the above post...you can't

running on empty is no way to travel

The guy who basically wrote the constitution also explained to the people of New York how power was partitioned.

So the refutation is clearly found in Federalist 45 and in the 9th and 10th amendments.

If you can tell me that Madison didn't mean that from 45, I'll be interested. Otherwise, it is the word of the "Father of the Constitution" against the "Whiny Moron on USMB".

The US Constitution was a joint project. 'Father of the Constitution' is a cute and misleading phrase.

Though Madison lost most of his battles over how to amend the Virginia Plan (most importantly over the exclusion of the Council of Revision), in the process he increasingly shifted the debate away from a position of pure state sovereignty.

Since most disagreements over what to include in the constitution were ultimately disputes over the balance of sovereignty between the states and national government, Madison's influence was critical.

Wood notes that Madison's ultimate contribution was not in designing any particular constitutional framework, but in shifting the debate toward a compromise of "shared sovereignty" between the national and state governments.

James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Madison himself wrote in letters that anyone looking for the 'original intent' or meanings' in the document should look to what the 'people' who ratified the document thought they were ratifying, not to look to the framers like himself for meanings -- as the ultimate authority lay in what the 'people' understood the words and the document to say.


You really should read something like Rakove's Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

And why SHOULD I do that ?

His system was flexible and he saw it that way. Not that he contemplated the politicization of the SCTOTUS. Jefferson did (in some ways).

People could (and have) adjusted "the rules" through the amendment process and hence people's intent is manifest.

However, his writings in the Federalist Papers (and even the statements by those who voted against ratification) belay, not a desire for a stronger central government...but a fear of one.

Why else would Patrick Henry and others insisted on a Bill of Rights (including the 10th amendment....which has never been rescinded) ?

BTW: Sorry, you don't like the term "Father Of The Constitution"...apparently because it does not suit your purposes. Madison not only penned most of it, but also penned most of the explanations around it.

I love how anyone who is getting backed down resorts to the use of terms like ideologue. It is consistent with what Obama is doing.

Pull your head out of his ass and think for yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This was only with respect to the National Bank.

Marshall's famous ruling came only because the people threw out the centralists in the form of John Adams in the election of 1800 and replaced them, not only with Jefferson...but a congress that set the course for a decentralized country for over a decade.

So much so that the North, when it pushed it to far, managed to bait the South in going to far thus sparking the Civil War.

Adam's appointed Marshall at the last minute and even Marshall proved to be a very inconsistent judge by his own standards.

Industrialization was not to come for over a century.

Without a central bank and other issues won by the Federalists versus the agraian nutjobs like Jefferson, the USA would not have been prepared to take over the lead in the Industrial revolution.

Marshall proved to be more consistent in his love of the System of Government and the Institutions the US Constitution gave us, than either Jefferson or Madison. Marshall checked his ideological principles at the door when it was a case of defending the Constitution and saving the Republic and it's Governmental Branches.

Ideologues like you ignorantly put forth Jefferson as some kind of example (myth of course) to follow, yet educated and informed people know people like you would destroy the very system they profess to be protecting -- the Republic

Making up straw men seems to be one of your specialties.

I don't recall holding up Jefferson as an example of anything. What I said was that he won in 1800 along with a whole lot of people running for the House.....and crushed the Federalist Party which had this country on a course for monarchy.

Try again....and stay with the actual arguments.

I'd love to see your reasoning behind your ass kissing of Marshall. While I agree with Robert Bork, that Marshall was necessary to preserving the union, it is also very clear that he was often not consistent.

I recall reading the book Marshall vs. Jefferson. It took good history and turned it into bulls**t.

And for the record: Aaron Burr is still a hero in my book...only because he parked one between Hamilton's eyes. Hamilton, was huge liar and a schemer. It's unfortunate he didn't simply state his case up front instead of lying his ass off in a quest for power.

Rigid consistency is not the kind of consistency a democratic, Federalist Republic demands. Consistency that would sacrifice the Republic because of some ideological principles is the type of factionalism that Madison and others feared.

A political party is not the type of factionalism we should fear, ideologically pure partisanship within parties is the threat. The USA functioned very well thank you, for a few hundred years with political parties in the process. What historically has brought the USA to the brink of death has been blind partisanship fed a steady diet of purity of ideology.

When you uphold attacking Marshall and Federalism (not the phoney 'new federalism' of the Federalist Society today), you cannot escape backing Jefferson, as Marshall's cousin, Thomas Jefferson, was Marshall's most vociferous and vile opponent. NO straw man, only aware of the source of your arguments, even if you aren't.

Bork represents the most biased type of scholarship, he is unworthy of serious consideration here and now (reading him as a case study on nitwit partisan ideology is cool). Bork has no honor: Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused, and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned...Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General, Robert Bork (as acting head of the Justice Department) to fire Cox.

Your comments regarding Hamilton expose you as a complete moron and idiot

 

[Listening]

You don't even know what qualifies us as being a Republic?

Are you drunk ?

And while you are showing me how you are smarter than Madison, why don't you explain the purpose behind our current electoral system...or why Senators (1/2 of congress) were originally appointed by the states.

I look forward to it.

not yet.

I support the electoral college system. I also support the amendment that opened the way for the popular election of the upper chamber.

I support the US Constitution as a pretty good document, flaws and all.

I think our system of government is doing just fine. I think the process of governing, which the major parties and the US House and US Senate control, is in trouble.

Money and power corrupts, but only people vote. When we abrogate our duty to be involved in the process of elections and governing we cede authority to money and an Oligarchy.

The system is fine, the process has been corrupted.

That didn't address what I asked for which is, again, contrary to your limited understanding.

The electoral system was, in effect, and is a way to make sure the weight of states factors into the equation of election. In theory, the president could be elected by only receiving 1/3 of the total popular vote.

Of course you support the 17th amendment....by you didn't explain why it was set up the way it was originally. Again....because it supports the maintenance of power in the states on those areas not defined by the USConstitution.

Were there any other points you wanted to avoid ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The guy who basically wrote the constitution also explained to the people of New York how power was partitioned.

So the refutation is clearly found in Federalist 45 and in the 9th and 10th amendments.

If you can tell me that Madison didn't mean that from 45, I'll be interested. Otherwise, it is the word of the "Father of the Constitution" against the "Whiny Moron on USMB".

The US Constitution was a joint project. 'Father of the Constitution' is a cute and misleading phrase.

Though Madison lost most of his battles over how to amend the Virginia Plan (most importantly over the exclusion of the Council of Revision), in the process he increasingly shifted the debate away from a position of pure state sovereignty.

Since most disagreements over what to include in the constitution were ultimately disputes over the balance of sovereignty between the states and national government, Madison's influence was critical.

Wood notes that Madison's ultimate contribution was not in designing any particular constitutional framework, but in shifting the debate toward a compromise of "shared sovereignty" between the national and state governments.

James Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Madison himself wrote in letters that anyone looking for the 'original intent' or meanings' in the document should look to what the 'people' who ratified the document thought they were ratifying, not to look to the framers like himself for meanings -- as the ultimate authority lay in what the 'people' understood the words and the document to say.


You really should read something like Rakove's Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

And why SHOULD I do that ?

His system was flexible and he saw it that way. Not that he contemplated the politicization of the SCTOTUS. Jefferson did (in some ways).

People could (and have) adjusted "the rules" through the amendment process and hence people's intent is manifest.

However, his writings in the Federalist Papers (and even the statements by those who voted against ratification) belay, not a desire for a stronger central government...but a fear of one.

Why else would Patrick Henry and others insisted on a Bill of Rights (including the 10th amendment....which has never been rescinded) ?

BTW: Sorry, you don't like the term "Father Of The Constitution"...apparently because it does not suit your purposes. Madison not only penned most of it, but also penned most of the explanations around it.

I love how anyone who is getting backed down resorts to the use of terms like ideologue. It is consistent with what Obama is doing.

Pull your head out of his ass and think for yourself.

Hamilton saved the United States of American under the new Constitution from becoming as pathetic as America was under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Listening]

Without a central bank and other issues won by the Federalists versus the agraian nutjobs like Jefferson, the USA would not have been prepared to take over the lead in the Industrial revolution.

Marshall proved to be more consistent in his love of the System of Government and the Institutions the US Constitution gave us, than either Jefferson or Madison. Marshall checked his ideological principles at the door when it was a case of defending the Constitution and saving the Republic and it's Governmental Branches.

Ideologues like you ignorantly put forth Jefferson as some kind of example (myth of course) to follow, yet educated and informed people know people like you would destroy the very system they profess to be protecting -- the Republic

Making up straw men seems to be one of your specialties.

I don't recall holding up Jefferson as an example of anything. What I said was that he won in 1800 along with a whole lot of people running for the House.....and crushed the Federalist Party which had this country on a course for monarchy.

Try again....and stay with the actual arguments.

I'd love to see your reasoning behind your ass kissing of Marshall. While I agree with Robert Bork, that Marshall was necessary to preserving the union, it is also very clear that he was often not consistent.

I recall reading the book Marshall vs. Jefferson. It took good history and turned it into bulls**t.

And for the record: Aaron Burr is still a hero in my book...only because he parked one between Hamilton's eyes. Hamilton, was huge liar and a schemer. It's unfortunate he didn't simply state his case up front instead of lying his ass off in a quest for power.

Rigid consistency is not the kind of consistency a democratic, Federalist Republic demands. Consistency that would sacrifice the Republic because of some ideological principles is the type of factionalism that Madison and others feared.

A political party is not the type of factionalism we should fear, ideologically pure partisanship within parties is the threat. The USA functioned very well thank you, for a few hundred years with political parties in the process. What historically has brought the USA to the brink of death has been blind partisanship fed a steady diet of purity of ideology.

When you uphold attacking Marshall and Federalism (not the phoney 'new federalism' of the Federalist Society today), you cannot escape backing Jefferson, as Marshall's cousin, Thomas Jefferson, was Marshall's most vociferous and vile opponent. NO straw man, only aware of the source of your arguments, even if you aren't.

Bork represents the most biased type of scholarship, he is unworthy of serious consideration here and now (reading him as a case study on nitwit partisan ideology is cool). Bork has no honor: Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused, and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned...Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General, Robert Bork (as acting head of the Justice Department) to fire Cox.

Your comments regarding Hamilton expose you as a complete moron and idiot

Still making stuff up to argue against I see.

I don't see the need to address any of this since it is all just garbage swirling in your head....

It clearly shows that you don't really believe in the Constitution or the Rule Of Law.

When you are ready to address the facts and keep the pontification in you ass (where you pull it from)...I'll be here.

 

[Listening]

The US Constitution was a joint project. 'Father of the Constitution' is a cute and misleading phrase.



Madison himself wrote in letters that anyone looking for the 'original intent' or meanings' in the document should look to what the 'people' who ratified the document thought they were ratifying, not to look to the framers like himself for meanings -- as the ultimate authority lay in what the 'people' understood the words and the document to say.


You really should read something like Rakove's Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.

And why SHOULD I do that ?

His system was flexible and he saw it that way. Not that he contemplated the politicization of the SCTOTUS. Jefferson did (in some ways).

People could (and have) adjusted "the rules" through the amendment process and hence people's intent is manifest.

However, his writings in the Federalist Papers (and even the statements by those who voted against ratification) belay, not a desire for a stronger central government...but a fear of one.

Why else would Patrick Henry and others insisted on a Bill of Rights (including the 10th amendment....which has never been rescinded) ?

BTW: Sorry, you don't like the term "Father Of The Constitution"...apparently because it does not suit your purposes. Madison not only penned most of it, but also penned most of the explanations around it.

I love how anyone who is getting backed down resorts to the use of terms like ideologue. It is consistent with what Obama is doing.

Pull your head out of his ass and think for yourself.

Hamilton saved the United States of American under the new Constitution from becoming as pathetic as America was under the Articles of Confederation.

Sure he did.

America was not pathetic because it had no Central Bank...but you keep on worshiping your statue of Alexander....I have his face on my dartboard.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Are you drunk ?

And while you are showing me how you are smarter than Madison, why don't you explain the purpose behind our current electoral system...or why Senators (1/2 of congress) were originally appointed by the states.

I look forward to it.

not yet.

I support the electoral college system. I also support the amendment that opened the way for the popular election of the upper chamber.

I support the US Constitution as a pretty good document, flaws and all.

I think our system of government is doing just fine. I think the process of governing, which the major parties and the US House and US Senate control, is in trouble.

Money and power corrupts, but only people vote. When we abrogate our duty to be involved in the process of elections and governing we cede authority to money and an Oligarchy.

The system is fine, the process has been corrupted.

That didn't address what I asked for which is, again, contrary to your limited understanding.

The electoral system was, in effect, and is a way to make sure the weight of states factors into the equation of election. In theory, the president could be elected by only receiving 1/3 of the total popular vote.

Of course you support the 17th amendment....by you didn't explain why it was set up the way it was originally. Again....because it supports the maintenance of power in the states on those areas not defined by the USConstitution.

Were there any other points you wanted to avoid ?

please keep up. this isn't a classroom or a court. The reasons why, of the things you ask, are easily looked up in cliff notes versions on the web and on Wikipedia. Stop wasting bandwidth.

Much has been written of opinions on the balance of powers and roles of branches of government laid out in the Constitution and Federalist, and other sources such as letters and more written by the founders and framers and even a few who were also ratifiers at the constitutional conventions.

You have a view that is rigid and looks to only the opinions that validate your preconceived biases. That's okay for a stick in the mud ideologue, but a true student of history, law, and constitutional government you can never be because your mind is shut tight.

Dante has had his understanding of the US -- it's institutions and players, altered by a few years of research.

An open mind does not equal an empty one needing to be filled, but it does require honest and open mindedness of the type you lack.

I despise Jefferson on many levels even as I admire some things about him. Being a liberal I do not view people as one-dimensional. But what I do not do is attack with venom and hate the way you do Hamilton.

it is sad to watch you devolve into a monster and a fool

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Making up straw men seems to be one of your specialties.

I don't recall holding up Jefferson as an example of anything. What I said was that he won in 1800 along with a whole lot of people running for the House.....and crushed the Federalist Party which had this country on a course for monarchy.

Try again....and stay with the actual arguments.

I'd love to see your reasoning behind your ass kissing of Marshall. While I agree with Robert Bork, that Marshall was necessary to preserving the union, it is also very clear that he was often not consistent.

I recall reading the book Marshall vs. Jefferson. It took good history and turned it into bulls**t.

And for the record: Aaron Burr is still a hero in my book...only because he parked one between Hamilton's eyes. Hamilton, was huge liar and a schemer. It's unfortunate he didn't simply state his case up front instead of lying his ass off in a quest for power.

Rigid consistency is not the kind of consistency a democratic, Federalist Republic demands. Consistency that would sacrifice the Republic because of some ideological principles is the type of factionalism that Madison and others feared.

A political party is not the type of factionalism we should fear, ideologically pure partisanship within parties is the threat. The USA functioned very well thank you, for a few hundred years with political parties in the process. What historically has brought the USA to the brink of death has been blind partisanship fed a steady diet of purity of ideology.

When you uphold attacking Marshall and Federalism (not the phoney 'new federalism' of the Federalist Society today), you cannot escape backing Jefferson, as Marshall's cousin, Thomas Jefferson, was Marshall's most vociferous and vile opponent. NO straw man, only aware of the source of your arguments, even if you aren't.

Bork represents the most biased type of scholarship, he is unworthy of serious consideration here and now (reading him as a case study on nitwit partisan ideology is cool). Bork has no honor: Saturday Night Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Nixon ordered Attorney General Richardson to fire Cox. Richardson refused, and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox. He also refused and resigned...Nixon then ordered the Solicitor General, Robert Bork (as acting head of the Justice Department) to fire Cox.

Your comments regarding Hamilton expose you as a complete moron and idiot

Still making stuff up to argue against I see.

I don't see the need to address any of this since it is all just garbage swirling in your head....

It clearly shows that you don't really believe in the Constitution or the Rule Of Law.

When you are ready to address the facts and keep the pontification in you ass (where you pull it from)...I'll be here.

Watergate and the crimes it attempted to cover up shred the rule of law, and it shred the faith and hope and dreams Americans had in and for representative democracy and a republican form of government

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And why SHOULD I do that ?

His system was flexible and he saw it that way. Not that he contemplated the politicization of the SCTOTUS. Jefferson did (in some ways).

People could (and have) adjusted "the rules" through the amendment process and hence people's intent is manifest.

However, his writings in the Federalist Papers (and even the statements by those who voted against ratification) belay, not a desire for a stronger central government...but a fear of one.

Why else would Patrick Henry and others insisted on a Bill of Rights (including the 10th amendment....which has never been rescinded) ?

BTW: Sorry, you don't like the term "Father Of The Constitution"...apparently because it does not suit your purposes. Madison not only penned most of it, but also penned most of the explanations around it.

I love how anyone who is getting backed down resorts to the use of terms like ideologue. It is consistent with what Obama is doing.

Pull your head out of his ass and think for yourself.

Hamilton saved the United States of American under the new Constitution from becoming as pathetic as America was under the Articles of Confederation.

Sure he did.

America was not pathetic because it had no Central Bank...but you keep on worshiping your statue of Alexander....I have his face on my dartboard.

What a one Note Nancy you are -- Central Bank -- go suck off Ron and Rand Paul and swallow their sperm .. kill the beginnings of life in the whacko libertarian land of Randian Nitwits.

 

[Listening]

not yet.

I support the electoral college system. I also support the amendment that opened the way for the popular election of the upper chamber.

I support the US Constitution as a pretty good document, flaws and all.

I think our system of government is doing just fine. I think the process of governing, which the major parties and the US House and US Senate control, is in trouble.

Money and power corrupts, but only people vote. When we abrogate our duty to be involved in the process of elections and governing we cede authority to money and an Oligarchy.

The system is fine, the process has been corrupted.

That didn't address what I asked for which is, again, contrary to your limited understanding.

The electoral system was, in effect, and is a way to make sure the weight of states factors into the equation of election. In theory, the president could be elected by only receiving 1/3 of the total popular vote.

Of course you support the 17th amendment....by you didn't explain why it was set up the way it was originally. Again....because it supports the maintenance of power in the states on those areas not defined by the USConstitution.

Were there any other points you wanted to avoid ?

please keep up. this isn't a classroom or a court. The reasons why, of the things you ask, are easily looked up in cliff notes versions on the web and on Wikipedia. Stop wasting bandwidth.

Much has been written of opinions on the balance of powers and roles of branches of government laid out in the Constitution and Federalist, and other sources such as letters and more written by the founders and framers and even a few who were also ratifiers at the constitutional conventions.

You have a view that is rigid and looks to only the opinions that validate your preconceived biases. That's okay for a stick in the mud ideologue, but a true student of history, law, and constitutional government you can never be because your mind is shut tight.

Dante has had his understanding of the US -- it's institutions and players, altered by a few years of research.

An open mind does not equal an empty one needing to be filled, but it does require honest and open mindedness of the type you lack.

I despise Jefferson on many levels even as I admire some things about him. Being a liberal I do not view people as one-dimensional. But what I do not do is attack with venom and hate the way you do Hamilton.

it is sad to watch you devolve into a monster and a fool

Translation: When I can't stay up ... I attack.

Keep doing your research...we've not discussed the evolution of things....but somehow you believe we have.

Again, you make stuff up.

I've never said "go back to the way it was" because it was never that way. Governance is a matter of the feelings of the people of the day.

That is what makes the 10th amendment and whole construction of the Constitution so brilliant. The people of Michigan don't have to like or want the same things as the people of Florida.

Our liberal, affirmative action failure, can't seem to understand that even though he claims to be a constitutional scholar...

His (and using your tricks of association) and your goal seems to be to homogonize america by using Washington D.C. as the sole source of government and completely ignoring the 50 state houses that exist today.

And people like you wonder how things like the Tea Party come to be.

This whole conversation started over a truly gross misinterpretation of the General Welfare Clause by a ignorant poster on this board (who can't justify his position or who has not tried).

I'll ask you again to reconcile your claims against the things I listed. We both know the answer and we both know that is why you won't address them.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Tea Party is a Fringe Wing within the Republican Party

 

[Listening]

The Tea Party is a Fringe Wing within the Republican Party

No s**t Sherlock.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

General Welfare Clause, gets to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. It does on some level get interpreted by the Executive and Legislative branches, but the final arbiter is the SCOTUS.

Now people like you despise the American system, so you hide behind old, lost battles of yesteryear.

Even an 'originalist' like Scalia is more like Marshall than wingnuts care to admit. Scalia, like Marshall, has sacrifice his ideology for the Court's Institutional Reputation. Scalia is an ideologue, but not as extreme as some people think when you parse where, when, and how his extremism kicks in.

People are always arguing about Marshall because he defined the roles of the branches in ways people like you misunderstand and misread. It has been written about much that Marshall would err on the side of the 'people' speaking through the Legislature on big issues of the day. He never tried to push the country where it had not already been heading.

Judicial review: It wasn't completely settled, but it was not a new concept by the time Marshall put it into play. Ignoring much of history is what happens when you get stuck on an argument and take stands on issues out of a full context

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Tea Party is a Fringe Wing within the Republican Party

No s**t Sherlock.

and Dante understood them before they understood themselves

true story

dD

 

[Listening]

General Welfare Clause, gets to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. It does on some level get interpreted by the Executive and Legislative branches, but the final arbiter is the SCOTUS.

Now people like you despise the American system, so you hide behind old, lost battles of yesteryear.

Even an 'originalist' like Scalia is more like Marshall than wingnuts care to admit. Scalia, like Marshall, has sacrifice his ideology for the Court's Institutional Reputation. Scalia is an ideologue, but not as extreme as some people think when you parse where, when, and how his extremism kicks in.

People are always arguing about Marshall because he defined the roles of the branches in ways people like you misunderstand and misread. It has been written about much that Marshall would err on the side of the 'people' speaking through the Legislature on big issues of the day. He never tried to push the country where it had not already been heading.

Judicial review: It wasn't completely settled, but it was not a new concept by the time Marshall put it into play. Ignoring much of history is what happens when you get stuck on an argument and take stands on issues out of a full context

ROTFLMAO

The SCOTUS interprets the General Welfare Clause......which means they get to say what it means or they get to tell us what the Constitution meant for it to say ?

This is hysterical.

Please don't throw context at me when it is clear you have no value for it.

 

[Billo_Really]

This whole conversation started over a truly gross misinterpretation of the General Welfare Clause by a ignorant poster on this board (who can't justify his position or who has not tried).

First off, you haven't proven I misinterpretated the "welfare clause", you just act like your interpretation is the correct one. And secondly, I have justified my position in post #18 (which you ignored). Thirdly, to say I haven't "tried", is simply a lie. BTW, you also threw out your own strawman by saying the General Welfare Clause doesn't give Congress unlimited power, which no one in this thread has claimed.

You mentioned Federalist 45 as proof of the limitation of the federal government. Yet in that very document, it says that the Congress shall have complete authority over the states in regards to general welfare.

the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the...general welfare

You called me ignorant without specifically addressing the points of my argument. Which means all you've done, is attach a little bullshit label to things you disagree with.

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The states do not. The Constitution clearly states the Congress has the power to make all laws necessary to "ensure the forgoing powers", as long as it is uniform throughout the country. And one of the forgoing powers in the Constitution, is domestic commerce.

 

[Listening]

This whole conversation started over a truly gross misinterpretation of the General Welfare Clause by a ignorant poster on this board (who can't justify his position or who has not tried).

First off, you haven't proven I misinterpretated the "welfare clause", you just act like your interpretation is the correct one. And secondly, I have justified my position in post #18 (which you ignored). Thirdly, to say I haven't "tried", is simply a lie. BTW, you also threw out your own strawman by saying the General Welfare Clause doesn't give Congress unlimited power, which no one in this thread has claimed.

You mentioned Federalist 45 as proof of the limitation of the federal government. Yet in that very document, it says that the Congress shall have complete authority over the states in regards to general welfare.

the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the...general welfare

You called me ignorant without specifically addressing the points of my argument. Which means all you've done, is attach a little bullshit label to things you disagree with.

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The states do not. The Constitution clearly states the Congress has the power to make all laws necessary to "ensure the forgoing powers", as long as it is uniform throughout the country. And one of the forgoing powers in the Constitution, is domestic commerce.

Proof was provided....signed sealed and delivered....as requested.

You taking lessons from Monty Python's Black Knight ?

 

[Billo_Really]

The SCOTUS interprets the General Welfare Clause......which means they get to say what it means or they get to tell us what the Constitution meant for it to say? .

That's right! And what they say is, your position is full of shit!

The Commerce Clause has been used to justify the use of federal laws in matters that do not on their face implicate interstate trade or exchange. Early on, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate interstate navigation. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). In 1905, the Court used the Commerce Clause to halt price fixing in the Chicago meat industry, when it ruled that Congress had authority to regulate the local meat market under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It found that business done even at a purely local level could become part of a continuous “current” of commerce that involved the interstate movement of goods and services. Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905).

If Congress has the authority to halt price fixing as codified in Gibbons v. Ogden, then they have the authority to halt price fixing in the healthcare industry.

 

[Billo_Really]

Proof was provided....signed sealed and delivered....as requested.

You taking lessons from Monty Python's Black Knight ?

State the particular post you're referring to.

And again, you refuse to address the points I've made. No where in this thread have you addressed who has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. So no, "proof was not provided", because you cannot prove something that wasn't addressed.