Con Law Question for Libs

[DGS49]

Not to get personal, "Derideo_Te," but are you fucking stupid or what?

JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS A GOOD IDEA DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS CONGRESS TO DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!

The Constitution gives Congress the power to do a short list of 17 things. That's it. Nothing else. The Supreme Court gives Congress a lot of leeway by "interpreting" specific powers very broadly. For example, Congress is empowered to "regulate interstate commerce," so the Supreme Court has defined "interstate commerce" to include not only commerce BETWEEN THE STATES, but also commerce WITHIN THE INDIVDUAL STATES that has an effect on interstate commerce.

But even in that case, the court is granting lip service to the Constitution.

Congress CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. In its perverse way the USSC acknowledged this fact in its ACA ruling last year; it said that the penalty for not enrolling was ACTUALLY A TAX. If it hadn't been found to be a tax, the they would have been COMPELLED to toss the requirement, because there is nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to compel people to buy health insurance.

Do you get it?

Even if it's a really, really, really, really, good idea, Congress CAN'T DO IT UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO DO IT!

AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO FORCE THE STATES TO SUBSIDIZE COLLEGE TUITION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF THAT STATE.

Constitutionally speaking, it's fucking ridiculous.

I am a semi-proud Vietnam Veteran and I like it when Congress does things that benefit Veterans, but this particular initiative is bullshit. Unconstitutional bullshit.

 

[regent]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

There are several things they can't do. At least not without amending the Constitution. They can't abridge free speech, establish a state religion, board soldiers in people's houses, etc.

When our second president took office, Congress abridged free speech with the Sedition Act. Americans were arrested for saying ill of the president. None of our rights are absolute. But a good amendment would be one that gives the Court the right to declare acts of Congress or the President unconstitutional, since the Constitution does not give the Court that power.

 

[DGS49]

More importantly, such an Amendment should provide that acts of Congress and the President could be reviewed directly and immediately, rather than having to wait for a case to arise and have it make its way through several levels of trial and appeals.

 

[rightwinger]

More importantly, such an Amendment should provide that acts of Congress and the President could be reviewed directly and immediately, rather than having to wait for a case to arise and have it make its way through several levels of trial and appeals.

Reviewed by whom?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not to get personal, "Derideo_Te," but are you fucking stupid or what?

JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS A GOOD IDEA DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE CONSTITUTION PERMITS CONGRESS TO DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!

The Constitution gives Congress the power to do a short list of 17 things. That's it. Nothing else. The Supreme Court gives Congress a lot of leeway by "interpreting" specific powers very broadly. For example, Congress is empowered to "regulate interstate commerce," so the Supreme Court has defined "interstate commerce" to include not only commerce BETWEEN THE STATES, but also commerce WITHIN THE INDIVDUAL STATES that has an effect on interstate commerce.

But even in that case, the court is granting lip service to the Constitution.

Congress CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY FORCE PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. In its perverse way the USSC acknowledged this fact in its ACA ruling last year; it said that the penalty for not enrolling was ACTUALLY A TAX. If it hadn't been found to be a tax, the they would have been COMPELLED to toss the requirement, because there is nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to compel people to buy health insurance.

Do you get it?

Even if it's a really, really, really, really, good idea, Congress CAN'T DO IT UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO DO IT!

AND CONGRESS HAS NO POWER TO FORCE THE STATES TO SUBSIDIZE COLLEGE TUITION FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT RESIDENTS OF THAT STATE.

Constitutionally speaking, it's fucking ridiculous.

I am a semi-proud Vietnam Veteran and I like it when Congress does things that benefit Veterans, but this particular initiative is bullshit. Unconstitutional bullshit.

Thank you for your service to the nation.

If your allegation is true, and I am not saying that it isn't, then all it will take is for any one of the states to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law.

But let's put this in a little perspective, shall we?

After WW2 the GI Bill essentially provided college tuition to veterans wherever they may be in the nation. That was Congress subsidizing education and the states benefited from that subsidy and still do to this day.

So all that is happening here is a potentially "unfunded mandate" at the very worst. However if memory serves me correctly that is no longer allowed in Congressional bills. All bills must contain the appropriate funding.

If that is true then this not what is being alleged by the OP. Perhaps the OP will be kind enough to provide the relevant links to the bill itself and then we can determine if the funding is in place for this bill.

 

[regent]

"The Constitution is what the Court say it is."
Justice Hughes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

Dear [MENTION=36589]DGS49[/MENTION]
Also [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] and [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]

1. What I notice is a different belief or philosophy as the default.
The Liberals I know seem to assume that anything is fair game, as long as the
people push it through the democratic process; and then it depends on the govt to check it if it goes outside the law.

When Liberals oppose some agenda or legislation, they don't depend on the spirit of the Constitution to check it, they depend on party power based on keeping people dependent on using that system.

I don't agree with this, but that's the reality I found with people who just go by what is voted in or ruled on or promoted by Mayors Governors or President. Government rules.

I also don't agree with assuming or accusing people of not caring just because we want better ways of solving the same social problems instead of pushing excess regulations into federal govt that does not have direct checks or representation as the state and local levels.

2. Someone on another forum suggested adding a process by which
Congress has to first prove that a bill is Constitutional BEFORE voting on or passing it.
Not waiting until afterwards.

So I would suggest both this, to prevent abuses by overreaching,
and also the opposite check. that as long as some people or group pushes an issue or an objection, either way, then that grievance must be addressed until resolved.

so if Congress is required to resolve conflicts so that neither laws are passed that are opposed on constitutional grounds and also laws are not rejected without replacing them with something that solves the problem,
then maybe we can stop this nonsense of either blocking things without providing a constitutional alternative, or pushing unconstitutional bills first and then fighting to correct them later.

3. So as a Liberal Democrat myself, I would answer that Congress should be required to either mediate conflicts, especially concerning religious or political beliefs and conflicts in ideology to prevent deadlocks blocking democratic due process, or refer to specialists to resolve the issues and report back how to correct legislation that is otherwise contested.

As it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and to discriminate on the basis of creed,
then this should be applied to partisan ideology and party or political beliefs equally as a religiously held belief that people cannot be required either to change, convert to, or be forced to fund or follow.

so conflict resolution and better written laws would be required to prevent from imposing biased beliefs through federal laws and govt.

I would promote such a standard for consistency
by educational outreach on the constitutional principles, laws, process and ethics
and training and assistance with conflict resolution and mediation to form a consensus on contested laws to prevent unconstitutional infringement or imposition, denial discrimination or exclusion.

 

[Disir]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

Congress has it's limitations.

These are noted here:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, single payer can be done via the general welfare clause, tax and spend clause and necessary and proper clause. Those are just off the top of my head and with one cup of coffee

Further, the courts decide whether or not a law is Constitutional. Nine out of ten times they will tell you what you have to do to make it constitutional and it will head back to congress to make it legit or it will get tossed to the side.

 

[rightwinger]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

Dear [MENTION=36589]DGS49[/MENTION]
Also [MENTION=20321]rightwinger[/MENTION] and [MENTION=32558]Luddly Neddite[/MENTION]

1. What I notice is a different belief or philosophy as the default.
The Liberals I know seem to assume that anything is fair game, as long as the
people push it through the democratic process; and then it depends on the govt to check it if it goes outside the law.

When Liberals oppose some agenda or legislation, they don't depend on the spirit of the Constitution to check it, they depend on party power based on keeping people dependent on using that system.

I don't agree with this, but that's the reality I found with people who just go by what is voted in or ruled on or promoted by Mayors Governors or President. Government rules.

I also don't agree with assuming or accusing people of not caring just because we want better ways of solving the same social problems instead of pushing excess regulations into federal govt that does not have direct checks or representation as the state and local levels.

2. Someone on another forum suggested adding a process by which
Congress has to first prove that a bill is Constitutional BEFORE voting on or passing it.
Not waiting until afterwards.

So I would suggest both this, to prevent abuses by overreaching,
and also the opposite check. that as long as some people or group pushes an issue or an objection, either way, then that grievance must be addressed until resolved.

so if Congress is required to resolve conflicts so that neither laws are passed that are opposed on constitutional grounds and also laws are not rejected without replacing them with something that solves the problem,
then maybe we can stop this nonsense of either blocking things without providing a constitutional alternative, or pushing unconstitutional bills first and then fighting to correct them later.

3. So as a Liberal Democrat myself, I would answer that Congress should be required to either mediate conflicts, especially concerning religious or political beliefs and conflicts in ideology to prevent deadlocks blocking democratic due process, or refer to specialists to resolve the issues and report back how to correct legislation that is otherwise contested.

As it is unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and to discriminate on the basis of creed,
then this should be applied to partisan ideology and party or political beliefs equally as a religiously held belief that people cannot be required either to change, convert to, or be forced to fund or follow.

so conflict resolution and better written laws would be required to prevent from imposing biased beliefs through federal laws and govt.

I would promote such a standard for consistency
by educational outreach on the constitutional principles, laws, process and ethics
and training and assistance with conflict resolution and mediation to form a consensus on contested laws to prevent unconstitutional infringement or imposition, denial discrimination or exclusion.

If a Congressman doesn't believe a law is constitutional, don't vote for it
If a President doesn't believe a law is constitutional, Veto it
If the Supreme Court doesn't believe a law is constitutional, overturn it

That is the way our CONSTITUTIONAL system works

 

[dblack]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

Congress has it's limitations.

These are noted here:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, single payer can be done via the general welfare clause, tax and spend clause and necessary and proper clause. Those are just off the top of my head and with one cup of coffee

Further, the courts decide whether or not a law is Constitutional. Nine out of ten times they will tell you what you have to do to make it constitutional and it will head back to congress to make it legit or it will get tossed to the side.

You still haven't answered the question. To re-phrase it, is there anything that you think could not be done via the general welfare clause and the commerce clause?

To, perhaps, give you more appreciation for where this question is coming from, many of us view the prevailing interpretation of the above clauses as so broad that it effectively does away with any limitations on federal government. Can you show how we're wrong in that concern?

 

[Howey]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

I guess this would be a question for an attorney. Do we have any?

 

[dblack]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

I guess this would be a question for an attorney. Do we have any?

You're missing the point. We're not looking of technical legal determination. That's what the Supreme Court is for. We're trying to understand the political philosophy of modern liberals. What is your opinion? How should the Constitution's limits on federal power be interpreted?

 

[rightwinger]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

I guess this would be a question for an attorney. Do we have any?

I am not an attorney, but I do watch Judge Judy every day

That qualifies me to provide legal interpretations on internet message boards

 

[Howey]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

I guess this would be a question for an attorney. Do we have any?

You're missing the point. We're not looking of technical legal determination. That's what the Supreme Court is for. We're trying to understand the political philosophy of modern liberals. What is your opinion? How should the Constitution's limits on federal power be interpreted?

No, I get your point. You're trying to trick us into saying something to give you an AHA! moment.

Allow me to be more specific. Good, bad, or indifferent, the SCOTT'S is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. My opinion has no bearing on their actions whatsoever.

That said, hasn't the SCOTUS repeatedly affirmed a presidents right to issue Executive Orders?

 

[Disir]

Honestly, is there ANYTHING that Congress might consider a "good idea" that Congress would be prevented from doing by the Constitution?

In other words, does the Constitution place any constraints at all on Congress?

If so, how are those constraints defined? Be specific.

I would like a general answer, but for example, Would Congress be permitted by the Constitution to implement "single payer," mandatory, universal health insurance? Why or why not?

Honestly.

Congress has it's limitations.

These are noted here:

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Yes, single payer can be done via the general welfare clause, tax and spend clause and necessary and proper clause. Those are just off the top of my head and with one cup of coffee

Further, the courts decide whether or not a law is Constitutional. Nine out of ten times they will tell you what you have to do to make it constitutional and it will head back to congress to make it legit or it will get tossed to the side.

You still haven't answered the question. To re-phrase it, is there anything that you think could not be done via the general welfare clause and the commerce clause?

To, perhaps, give you more appreciation for where this question is coming from, many of us view the prevailing interpretation of the above clauses as so broad that it effectively does away with any limitations on federal government. Can you show how we're wrong in that concern?

No. I did answer the question. This is not the question that was asked.

See, just between you and me.........law is not a feely kind of thing. It's why it's the shizzle. Alexander Hamilton is where it is at: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

The argument that is being made is not new. Simply because the Heritage Foundation nitwits are 'concerned' does not make it an actual concern.
The general welfare clause is limited to appropriations providing it is not "local". It operates as a qualifier. The courts do not find the broadness of the general welfare clause as unconstitutional in cases. They do find those same laws unconstitutional in other areas.

As it stands the people that are concerned are simply concerned that the broadness itself exists. Not that it is actually used but rather that it exists at all.

Because you axe me nicely.........

The courts have found that the commerce clause cannot be used to hold up certain laws. Even the most heinous crimes:
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

The above overturned the Violence Against Women Act. Non economic activity and there are remedies to be had. Rightly so.

On that note, I would like to point out something that many on the right refuse to acknowledge. There is much talk of state rights. Why do they not use them?

Most of our arguments boil down to who is buying under the pretense of state rights. The ACA was designed to answer those issues which is why there are states that said, well we can get the job done but we think we have a better way. The argument that has been produced on line is that it is not necessary at all.

 

[dblack]

I guess this would be a question for an attorney. Do we have any?

You're missing the point. We're not looking of technical legal determination. That's what the Supreme Court is for. We're trying to understand the political philosophy of modern liberals. What is your opinion? How should the Constitution's limits on federal power be interpreted?

No, I get your point. You're trying to trick us into saying something to give you an AHA! moment.

Allow me to be more specific. Good, bad, or indifferent, the SCOTT'S is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. My opinion has no bearing on their actions whatsoever.

That said, hasn't the SCOTUS repeatedly affirmed a presidents right to issue Executive Orders?

Wow... no dude, it's not a trick. And, for what it's worth, all you're doing by being so evasive is confirming conservative's worst fears - that what you really want is unlimited government power.

 

[dblack]

Congress has it's limitations.

These are noted here:


Yes, single payer can be done via the general welfare clause, tax and spend clause and necessary and proper clause. Those are just off the top of my head and with one cup of coffee

Further, the courts decide whether or not a law is Constitutional. Nine out of ten times they will tell you what you have to do to make it constitutional and it will head back to congress to make it legit or it will get tossed to the side.

You still haven't answered the question. To re-phrase it, is there anything that you think could not be done via the general welfare clause and the commerce clause?

To, perhaps, give you more appreciation for where this question is coming from, many of us view the prevailing interpretation of the above clauses as so broad that it effectively does away with any limitations on federal government. Can you show how we're wrong in that concern?

No. I did answer the question. This is not the question that was asked.

See, just between you and me.........law is not a feely kind of thing. It's why it's the shizzle. Alexander Hamilton is where it is at: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

The argument that is being made is not new. Simply because the Heritage Foundation nitwits are 'concerned' does not make it an actual concern.
The general welfare clause is limited to appropriations providing it is not "local". It operates as a qualifier. The courts do not find the broadness of the general welfare clause as unconstitutional in cases. They do find those same laws unconstitutional in other areas.

As it stands the people that are concerned are simply concerned that the broadness itself exists. Not that it is actually used but rather that it exists at all.

Because you axe me nicely.........

The courts have found that the commerce clause cannot be used to hold up certain laws. Even the most heinous crimes:
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

The above overturned the Violence Against Women Act. Non economic activity and there are remedies to be had. Rightly so.

On that note, I would like to point out something that many on the right refuse to acknowledge. There is much talk of state rights. Why do they not use them?

Most of our arguments boil down to who is buying under the pretense of state rights. The ACA was designed to answer those issues which is why there are states that said, well we can get the job done but we think we have a better way. The argument that has been produced on line is that it is not necessary at all.

The point isn't to cite Court opinions, but to find some agreement on general principles that make it possible to predict how much power government will have. That's the whole point of having a constitution in the first place, to make consent of the government something besides a blank check.

But the above case is at least as start. First of all, do you agree with the Court's decision in US vs MORRISON? It was a 5-4 ruling. Would you have supported it if it had gone the other way? And most importantly, why or why not? How far do you think the commerce clause should be stretched to justify federal power? How about the general welfare clause? What limiting principles should apply to the interpretation of these clauses as broad general powers?

 

[Disir]

You still haven't answered the question. To re-phrase it, is there anything that you think could not be done via the general welfare clause and the commerce clause?

To, perhaps, give you more appreciation for where this question is coming from, many of us view the prevailing interpretation of the above clauses as so broad that it effectively does away with any limitations on federal government. Can you show how we're wrong in that concern?

No. I did answer the question. This is not the question that was asked.

See, just between you and me.........law is not a feely kind of thing. It's why it's the shizzle. Alexander Hamilton is where it is at: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

The argument that is being made is not new. Simply because the Heritage Foundation nitwits are 'concerned' does not make it an actual concern.
The general welfare clause is limited to appropriations providing it is not "local". It operates as a qualifier. The courts do not find the broadness of the general welfare clause as unconstitutional in cases. They do find those same laws unconstitutional in other areas.

As it stands the people that are concerned are simply concerned that the broadness itself exists. Not that it is actually used but rather that it exists at all.

Because you axe me nicely.........

The courts have found that the commerce clause cannot be used to hold up certain laws. Even the most heinous crimes:
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

The above overturned the Violence Against Women Act. Non economic activity and there are remedies to be had. Rightly so.

On that note, I would like to point out something that many on the right refuse to acknowledge. There is much talk of state rights. Why do they not use them?

Most of our arguments boil down to who is buying under the pretense of state rights. The ACA was designed to answer those issues which is why there are states that said, well we can get the job done but we think we have a better way. The argument that has been produced on line is that it is not necessary at all.

The point isn't to cite Court opinions, but to find some agreement on general principles that make it possible to predict how much power government will have. That's the whole point of having a constitution in the first place, to make consent of the government something besides a blank check.

But the above case is at least as start. First of all, do you agree with the Court's decision in US vs MORRISON? It was a 5-4 ruling. Would you have supported it if it had gone the other way? And most importantly, why or why not? How far do you think the commerce clause should be stretched to justify federal power? How about the general welfare clause? What limiting principles should apply to the interpretation of these clauses as broad general powers?

We already have general principles that we agree with. We already have checks in place. Pretending that they are not in place is what leads others to assume that you guys are playing "tricks". Your responses can be misinterpreted as continuously moving the goal posts. This is indicated by the call for "broadness" while simultaneously requesting limitations. I don't think that this is malicious. I think that this is simply a matter of the inability to articulate what is already in existence and what you want to achieve.

Do I think that Morrison was decided rightly? In part. Does it qualify under the commerce clause? Yes. Do we have precedent? We do.

It is in the remedies. Are they inadequate? Yes. Were there states involved in the creation of this law to address the inadequacies in state laws? Yes, there were.

Now, explain to me how it is that a state or your state has addressed or will address those inadequacies? Along with rights come responsibilities. When the states refuse to act or to use the rights that they have then this in turn fosters a desire and need to find a solution at the federal level.

 

[richstacy]

Because Americans aren't familiar with the Constitution. If it was followed like it was intended and enforced by a voting populace who actually were familiar with the problems of the government, we would never have gotten in this mess.

When the Constitution takes a backseat in the education system to everything else, you end up with a mass of youth who aren't aware the system that their ancestors gave their lives to create is slowly falling apart.

Actually, you are wrong.

It is the TeaTards and Libertarians who are unfamiliar with the Constitution and the role our legal system and resulting case law play in its execution

Burying yourself in an 18th century mindset is not the answer

Really? Are you seriously trying to tell me that liberals are more familiar with the Constitution than the right?

I will tell you that neither the left or the right are particularly knowledgeable about the Constitution. They both have preconceived, and often erroneous notions that come mainly from extremist blogs and websites on one end or the other.

If you really want to learn about the Constitution, take a course in Constitutional Law. After you have read and been tested on a few hundred cases, you will begin the get a picture of what Con Law is. Never rely on partisan sources.

 

[dblack]

No. I did answer the question. This is not the question that was asked.

See, just between you and me.........law is not a feely kind of thing. It's why it's the shizzle. Alexander Hamilton is where it is at: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

The argument that is being made is not new. Simply because the Heritage Foundation nitwits are 'concerned' does not make it an actual concern.
The general welfare clause is limited to appropriations providing it is not "local". It operates as a qualifier. The courts do not find the broadness of the general welfare clause as unconstitutional in cases. They do find those same laws unconstitutional in other areas.

As it stands the people that are concerned are simply concerned that the broadness itself exists. Not that it is actually used but rather that it exists at all.

Because you axe me nicely.........

The courts have found that the commerce clause cannot be used to hold up certain laws. Even the most heinous crimes:
UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

The above overturned the Violence Against Women Act. Non economic activity and there are remedies to be had. Rightly so.

On that note, I would like to point out something that many on the right refuse to acknowledge. There is much talk of state rights. Why do they not use them?

Most of our arguments boil down to who is buying under the pretense of state rights. The ACA was designed to answer those issues which is why there are states that said, well we can get the job done but we think we have a better way. The argument that has been produced on line is that it is not necessary at all.

The point isn't to cite Court opinions, but to find some agreement on general principles that make it possible to predict how much power government will have. That's the whole point of having a constitution in the first place, to make consent of the government something besides a blank check.

But the above case is at least as start. First of all, do you agree with the Court's decision in US vs MORRISON? It was a 5-4 ruling. Would you have supported it if it had gone the other way? And most importantly, why or why not? How far do you think the commerce clause should be stretched to justify federal power? How about the general welfare clause? What limiting principles should apply to the interpretation of these clauses as broad general powers?

We already have general principles that we agree with.

What are those?

We already have checks in place. Pretending that they are not in place is what leads others to assume that you guys are playing "tricks". Your responses can be misinterpreted as continuously moving the goal posts. This is indicated by the call for "broadness" while simultaneously requesting limitations.

Who is calling for 'broadness'? What does that mean?

I don't think that this is malicious. I think that this is simply a matter of the inability to articulate what is already in existence and what you want to achieve.

Do I think that Morrison was decided rightly? In part. Does it qualify under the commerce clause? Yes. Do we have precedent? We do.

So, you disagree with the example you originally cited as an example of how the commerce clause is limited. How should it be limited, in your view?

It is in the remedies. Are they inadequate? Yes. Were there states involved in the creation of this law to address the inadequacies in state laws? Yes, there were.

Now, explain to me how it is that a state or your state has addressed or will address those inadequacies? Along with rights come responsibilities. When the states refuse to act or to use the rights that they have then this in turn fosters a desire and need to find a solution at the federal level.

So?