FACT - The federal govt CANNOT by itself amend the federal constitution

[Skylar]

Then 'arms' would be limited to muskets? As this was what the term was understood to mean per the founders.

And of course, almost none of the terms used in the constitution were defined by the constitution. What is 'probable' per the constitution? What is 'unreasonable'? What is 'natural-born'?

Depends on who you ask. And while opinions vary, authority doesn't. Adjudication over all cases that arise under the constitution is delegated to the federal judiciary.

Delegated??? Where does the constitution say that.? Fact is the judiciary simply GRANTED itself the power to interpret the constitution. The tenth amendment gave the power to the states.

The constitution clearly recognizes that the judicial power of the courts exists on all cases that arise under the constitution. To claim that the courts had the authority to adjudicate challenges to the laws of congress, but lacked the authority to rule in favor of such challenges is ludicrous. Like claiming that the executive had the authority to enforce laws. But not to make any arrests.

The constitution didn't exist in a vaccum. It existed in the context of English law, which had a long standing tradition of judicial review. And Hamilton makes it absurdly clear that the judciary is to determine the meaning of the constitution:

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Alexander Hamilton
Federalist Paper 78

This was a view held even by Anti-Federalists, who recognized the authority of the judiciary to void unconstitutional laws was part of the judicial power.

The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void.

Robert Yates
Anti-Federalist Papers 78-82
1787

The idea that the Federal courts just 'made up' judicial review in 1803 is simply nonsense. Judicial review predated the courts. And the authority of the courts to void unconstitutional laws was recognized by federalist and anti-federalist alike.

 

[Skylar]

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You do realize that eminent domain requires that the land in question be paid for, right? It simply forces the sale of the land by the private land holder. Which is perfectly consistent with the 5th amendment. As its perfectly legit to take land for public use.....as long as you justly compensate for it.

You do understand that Clause 17 of Section 8 says the federal government cannot purchase any land without the consent of the State Legislature. Ever wondered why the rights of way for interstate highways are owned by their respective states? The states use their powers of eminent domain and have retained ownership. If you notice the Constitution does not use the words "land" and "property" interchangeably. The property mentioned would include ships commandeered during time of war or land transportation assets such as trains or big trucks.

I've never said otherwise regarding the federal possession of State land. The issue I was responding to was the bolded portion of the 5th amendment. Which makes it clear that the seizure of land is permissible, but required just compensation. And obviously has no relevance to the states because;

1) The 5th amendment protects rights of people. Not States. The State has no rights. It has powers. Only people have rights. Making any application of the 5th amendment in relation to State V Federal contests of land irrelevant.

2) The first 9 amendments to the Bill of Rights didn't apply to or in any way limit the States during the era of the founders. It applied exclusively to the federal government. With the exception of the 10th amendment, the entire Bill of Rights was functionally irrelevant to the States. And would remain irrelevant until the ratification of the 14th amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." James Madison

You might say Madison was a prophet.

What's interesting to note is two things: First, this statement from Madison's February 2nd, 1792 debate on the Cod Fishery Bill.

It is to be recollected that the terms "common defence and general welfare," as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this Constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as great a latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now assigned to them.

James Madison
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties.
February 7, 1792.

Madison recognized that the great latitude of the 'common defense and general welfare' clauses was something that was occurring in 1792. "Three short years' after the government was founded under the constitution. Only 5 since the Federalist papers had been written.

Its hard to argue that a more expansive interpretation of 'common defense and general welfare' was not what the founders intended.....when that was the policy they were enacting within 3 years of passage of the constitution. These were the founders in office, the founders in congress. Washington was still the president, and hadn't even finished his first term with this bill being debated in only the 2nd congress.

To be sure, James Madison surely disagreed with the expansive interpretation of general welfare and common defense, and argued strongly against implied powers.

However, the founders disagreed. Or more accurately, a majority of the founders did. And I argue this is a pretty compelling expression of their will on the matter.

The second point to note.....is that the Cod Fishery Bill was passed by congress. This with direct opposition from James Madison using the very citation you've offered. And despite this, the founders embraced the expansive interpretation of 'common defense and general welfare'. Which again, I argue is a compelling expression of their will on the matter.

Men seeking more power than allowed, who would have thought, my point still stands, Madison was and still is correct by the letter and ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitution. Just because some chose to violate it doesn't make it any more right today than it was then. You don't simply usurp the document, Article 5 is there for a reason, to give the States the final say on changes.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

The idea that the Federal courts just 'made up' judicial review in 1803 is simply nonsense. Judicial review predated the courts. And the authority of the courts to void unconstitutional laws was recognized by federalist and anti-federalist alike.

Thomas Jefferson didn't. The idea of judges repealing laws has been controversial since the concept was invented in 1803. Of course judges had always had the right to say a law was unconstitutional, but prior to 1803 that did not repeal the law. It was just their opinion.

 

[OKTexas]

You do realize that eminent domain requires that the land in question be paid for, right? It simply forces the sale of the land by the private land holder. Which is perfectly consistent with the 5th amendment. As its perfectly legit to take land for public use.....as long as you justly compensate for it.

You do understand that Clause 17 of Section 8 says the federal government cannot purchase any land without the consent of the State Legislature. Ever wondered why the rights of way for interstate highways are owned by their respective states? The states use their powers of eminent domain and have retained ownership. If you notice the Constitution does not use the words "land" and "property" interchangeably. The property mentioned would include ships commandeered during time of war or land transportation assets such as trains or big trucks.

I've never said otherwise regarding the federal possession of State land. The issue I was responding to was the bolded portion of the 5th amendment. Which makes it clear that the seizure of land is permissible, but required just compensation. And obviously has no relevance to the states because;

1) The 5th amendment protects rights of people. Not States. The State has no rights. It has powers. Only people have rights. Making any application of the 5th amendment in relation to State V Federal contests of land irrelevant.

2) The first 9 amendments to the Bill of Rights didn't apply to or in any way limit the States during the era of the founders. It applied exclusively to the federal government. With the exception of the 10th amendment, the entire Bill of Rights was functionally irrelevant to the States. And would remain irrelevant until the ratification of the 14th amendment.

Simply the 5th Amendment does not remove the requirement of Clause 17 for the feds to get State legislative approval to obtain land within the State. What has happened or will happen doesn't alter the way it should happen.

Also if you read Clause 17 the feds have no legislative authority over private land, to have eminent domain powers you need legislative authority.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

Don't have any idea where you came up with that but the State meaning one of the several States and the Federal Government have never been used interchangeably in the Constitution.

States do have the exclusive right to eminent domain.

Edit: Property in the Constitutional sense would be what we call personal property, not real property as in land.

your highlight in blue shows where I wasn't clear enough for your simple mind. The sentence in question was NOT quoting the term 'state' from this sentence 'Consent of the Legislature of the State'

What I wrote were two segments on two separate items from the USC. Both were preceded by bold text to differentiate the two arguments. I actually wrote "The state, meaning the government, has the explicit power of eminent domain." with a lower case 's' in state. I went back in here and put a spacer in there for you.

If you followed up you'd have read "The federal government’s power of eminent domain has long been used in the United States to acquire property for public use. Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government." - USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division : History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

Your wingnutty insistence on ignoring facts like 'property' including land is par for the course

and "States do have the exclusive right to eminent domain" conveniently leaves out "states, meaning governments" in order to bolster your warped and pathetic sense of being in possession of even a rudimentary critical thinking skill set. If you used small case 's' for state, you'd have to acknowledge state meaning governments - city, state, county, federal

Cities and counties get their eminent domain authority from State laws, the States can expand or reduce that authority at their discretion. Per Clause 17 the feds can only purchase land in a State with their consent. Watch carefully, there are going to be federal court cases coming very shortly concerning Clause 17 and the lands congress has legislative authority over.

Anyone with a toilet plunger and a can of Comet can file a lawsuit

You keep using two different parts of the USC. It's okay, it's like the Obama admin used two arguments to defend the constitutionality of the PPACA's mandates

except you are confusing one with the other and mixing them together. They address two different issues. One is specific to building a federal government from scratch and the other addresses a long standing agreement and tradition of a government's right to use eminent domain.

Federal lands that were bought are federal lands. There are arguments floating around all over the blogosphere and wingnut news that have some specs of validity, but... a plunger and a can of Comet

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=49869]Skylar[/MENTION]

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America." James Madison

You might say Madison was a prophet.

What's interesting to note is two things: First, this statement from Madison's February 2nd, 1792 debate on the Cod Fishery Bill.

It is to be recollected that the terms "common defence and general welfare," as here used, are not novel terms, first introduced into this Constitution. They are terms familiar in their construction, and well known to the people of America. They are repeatedly found in the old Articles of Confederation, where, although they are susceptible of as great a latitude as can be given them by the context here, it was never supposed or pretended that they conveyed any such power as is now assigned to them.

James Madison
On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties.
February 7, 1792.

Madison recognized that the great latitude of the 'common defense and general welfare' clauses was something that was occurring in 1792. "Three short years' after the government was founded under the constitution. Only 5 since the Federalist papers had been written.

Its hard to argue that a more expansive interpretation of 'common defense and general welfare' was not what the founders intended.....when that was the policy they were enacting within 3 years of passage of the constitution. These were the founders in office, the founders in congress. Washington was still the president, and hadn't even finished his first term with this bill being debated in only the 2nd congress.

To be sure, James Madison surely disagreed with the expansive interpretation of general welfare and common defense, and argued strongly against implied powers.

However, the founders disagreed. Or more accurately, a majority of the founders did. And I argue this is a pretty compelling expression of their will on the matter.

The second point to note.....is that the Cod Fishery Bill was passed by congress. This with direct opposition from James Madison using the very citation you've offered. And despite this, the founders embraced the expansive interpretation of 'common defense and general welfare'. Which again, I argue is a compelling expression of their will on the matter.

Please learn to use the term 'framers' when speaking of the USC.

The framers and founders are separate groups. The framers contain many of the same players, but not all founders were framers.

Madison? You do know he wrote to a friend who asked about meanings and interpretations that the USC meant what the people who ratified it thought it meant, not what he as a clerk thought.

The people, not the founders and framers, or even the states gave power to the document. It was the people as a national entity.

Up or down vote. No state legislatures got a vote because of the principle of: a government cannot choose what kind of a government the people want.

 

[OKTexas]

[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

your highlight in blue shows where I wasn't clear enough for your simple mind. The sentence in question was NOT quoting the term 'state' from this sentence 'Consent of the Legislature of the State'

What I wrote were two segments on two separate items from the USC. Both were preceded by bold text to differentiate the two arguments. I actually wrote "The state, meaning the government, has the explicit power of eminent domain." with a lower case 's' in state. I went back in here and put a spacer in there for you.

If you followed up you'd have read "The federal government’s power of eminent domain has long been used in the United States to acquire property for public use. Eminent domain ''appertains to every independent government." - USDOJ: Environment and Natural Resources Division : History of the Federal Use of Eminent Domain

Your wingnutty insistence on ignoring facts like 'property' including land is par for the course

and "States do have the exclusive right to eminent domain" conveniently leaves out "states, meaning governments" in order to bolster your warped and pathetic sense of being in possession of even a rudimentary critical thinking skill set. If you used small case 's' for state, you'd have to acknowledge state meaning governments - city, state, county, federal

Cities and counties get their eminent domain authority from State laws, the States can expand or reduce that authority at their discretion. Per Clause 17 the feds can only purchase land in a State with their consent. Watch carefully, there are going to be federal court cases coming very shortly concerning Clause 17 and the lands congress has legislative authority over.

Anyone with a toilet plunger and a can of Comet can file a lawsuit

You keep using two different parts of the USC. It's okay, it's like the Obama admin used two arguments to defend the constitutionality of the PPACA's mandates

except you are confusing one with the other and mixing them together. They address two different issues. One is specific to building a federal government from scratch and the other addresses a long standing agreement and tradition of a government's right to use eminent domain.

Federal lands that were bought are federal lands. There are arguments floating around all over the blogosphere and wingnut news that have some specs of validity, but... a plunger and a can of Comet

Really, how about you try to file a suit against the government for unconstitutional spending, your suit will be summarily dismissed saying you have no standing.

The feds were not given eminent domain over private lands because Clause 17 denies them legislative authority over private lands. Without legislative authority you have no eminent domain.

BTW a plunger and comet serve two different purposes.

 

[Skylar]

Please learn to use the term 'framers' when speaking of the USC

No thank you. I'm quite happy with my words choices.

And can I take it your complete lack of any mention of the two primary points made that have nothing to add to them?

If the founders were enacting an expansive interpretation of the 'common defense and general welfare' by 1792 as Madison acknowledges......wouldn't that be a pretty clear indication of their will on the matter?

The people, not the founders and framers, or even the states gave power to the document. It was the people as a national entity.

Up or down vote. No state legislatures got a vote because of the principle of: a government cannot choose what kind of a government the people want.

The people give power to every government act. Through their representatives. That's kinda the point of a democratic republic.

As for the method of ratification of the constitution, it was entirely up to a particular state. Delaware for example ratified the constitution by the vote of representatives for Delaware:

We the Deputies of the People of the Delaware State, in Convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the Deputies of the United States in a General Convention held at the City of Philadelphia on the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, Have approved, assented to, ratified, and confirmed, and by these Presents, Do, in virtue of the Power and Authority to us given for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and our Constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm the said Constitution.

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Delaware; December 7, 1787.

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Delaware

The vote was unanimous: 30 to 0. And I'm pretty sure there were more than 30 people in Delaware in 1787. Far from a popular vote for ratification of the constitution in every state, it was the method of ratification in no state.

December 7, 1787: Delaware ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 0 against.

December 12, 1787: Pennsylvania ratifies. Vote: 46 for, 23 against.

December 18, 1787: New Jersey ratifies. Vote: 38 for, 0 against.

January 2, 1788: Georgia ratifies. Vote: 26 for, 0 against.

January 9, 1788: Connecticut ratifies. Vote: 128 for, 40 against.

February 6, 1788: Massachusetts ratifies. Vote: 187 for, 168 against.

March 24, 1788: Rhode Island popular referendum rejects. Vote: 237 for, 2708 against.

April 28, 1788: Maryland ratifies. Vote: 63 for, 11 against.

May 23, 1788: South Carolina ratifies. Vote: 149 for, 73 against.

June 21, 1788: New Hampshire ratifies. Vote: 57 for, 47 against. Minimum requirement for ratification met.

June 25, 1788: Virginia ratifies. Vote: 89 for, 79 against.

July 26, 1788: New York ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 27 against.

August 2, 1788: North Carolina convention adjourns without ratifying by a vote of 185 in favor of adjournment, 84 opposed.

November 21, 1789: North Carolina ratifies. Vote: 194 for, 77 against.

May 29, 1790: Rhode Island ratifies. Vote: 34 for, 32 against.

Ratification Dates and Votes - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not one State used popular vote to ratify the constitution. The only State to even try was Rhode Island. And failed. They then went with representatives, and ratified it.

You claim ' the USC meant what the people who ratified it thought it meant'. Those people were, without exception, representatives of each State. Do you still hold that the constitution means whatever the people ratified it thought it meant?

If not, why not?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

BTW a plunger and comet serve two different purposes.

So does thinking and posting!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

Cities and counties get their eminent domain authority from State laws, the States can expand or reduce that authority at their discretion. Per Clause 17 the feds can only purchase land in a State with their consent. Watch carefully, there are going to be federal court cases coming very shortly concerning Clause 17 and the lands congress has legislative authority over.

Anyone with a toilet plunger and a can of Comet can file a lawsuit

You keep using two different parts of the USC. It's okay, it's like the Obama admin used two arguments to defend the constitutionality of the PPACA's mandates

except you are confusing one with the other and mixing them together. They address two different issues. One is specific to building a federal government from scratch and the other addresses a long standing agreement and tradition of a government's right to use eminent domain.

Federal lands that were bought are federal lands. There are arguments floating around all over the blogosphere and wingnut news that have some specs of validity, but... a plunger and a can of Comet

Really, how about you try to file a suit against the government for unconstitutional spending, your suit will be summarily dismissed saying you have no standing.

The feds were not given eminent domain over private lands because Clause 17 denies them legislative authority over private lands. Without legislative authority you have no eminent domain.

BTW a plunger and comet serve two different purposes.

'legislative authority'? Once the federal government has ownership of land, they own it. The federal government does land swaps with state governments all the time.

You must be arguing over the initial taking or possession of land and how it was acquired, what process was used. Your imbecilic notion that the federal government does not have the power of eminent domain is keeping your head up your ass. How do you breath...straws?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Please learn to use the term 'framers' when speaking of the USC

No thank you. I'm quite happy with my words choices.

And can I take it your complete lack of any mention of the two primary points made that have nothing to add to them?

If the founders were enacting an expansive interpretation of the 'common defense and general welfare' by 1792 as Madison acknowledges......wouldn't that be a pretty clear indication of their will on the matter?

The people, not the founders and framers, or even the states gave power to the document. It was the people as a national entity.

Up or down vote. No state legislatures got a vote because of the principle of: a government cannot choose what kind of a government the people want.

The people give power to every government act. Through their representatives. That's kinda the point of a democratic republic.

As for the method of ratification of the constitution, it was entirely up to a particular state. Delaware for example ratified the constitution by the vote of representatives for Delaware:

We the Deputies of the People of the Delaware State, in Convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the Federal Constitution proposed and agreed upon by the Deputies of the United States in a General Convention held at the City of Philadelphia on the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, Have approved, assented to, ratified, and confirmed, and by these Presents, Do, in virtue of the Power and Authority to us given for that purpose, for and in behalf of ourselves and our Constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify, and confirm the said Constitution.

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Delaware; December 7, 1787.

Avalon Project - Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Delaware

The vote was unanimous: 30 to 0. And I'm pretty sure there were more than 30 people in Delaware in 1787. Far from a popular vote for ratification of the constitution in every state, it was the method of ratification in no state.

December 7, 1787: Delaware ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 0 against.

December 12, 1787: Pennsylvania ratifies. Vote: 46 for, 23 against.

December 18, 1787: New Jersey ratifies. Vote: 38 for, 0 against.

January 2, 1788: Georgia ratifies. Vote: 26 for, 0 against.

January 9, 1788: Connecticut ratifies. Vote: 128 for, 40 against.

February 6, 1788: Massachusetts ratifies. Vote: 187 for, 168 against.

March 24, 1788: Rhode Island popular referendum rejects. Vote: 237 for, 2708 against.

April 28, 1788: Maryland ratifies. Vote: 63 for, 11 against.

May 23, 1788: South Carolina ratifies. Vote: 149 for, 73 against.

June 21, 1788: New Hampshire ratifies. Vote: 57 for, 47 against. Minimum requirement for ratification met.

June 25, 1788: Virginia ratifies. Vote: 89 for, 79 against.

July 26, 1788: New York ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 27 against.

August 2, 1788: North Carolina convention adjourns without ratifying by a vote of 185 in favor of adjournment, 84 opposed.

November 21, 1789: North Carolina ratifies. Vote: 194 for, 77 against.

May 29, 1790: Rhode Island ratifies. Vote: 34 for, 32 against.

Ratification Dates and Votes - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Not one State used popular vote to ratify the constitution. The only State to even try was Rhode Island. And failed. They then went with representatives, and ratified it.

You claim ' the USC meant what the people who ratified it thought it meant'. Those people were, without exception, representatives of each State. Do you still hold that the constitution means whatever the people ratified it thought it meant?

If not, why not?

The 'founders' did NOT write the USC nor did they have any authority or power to make the document binding on 'the people'

The USC was drafted by a select group of people we call 'the framers' of the United States Constitution.

Constitution of the United States - A History

Madison is on record answering in a letter to a friend the question(s) of meanings and interpretations. Madison answered, do not look to him or other framers (men who crafted/wrote the document for meanings in that it was 'the people' who ratified the document, gave the document force and authority. Look to what they who ratified and gave it power thought.

Funny thing is both Madison and Hamilton fought very hard in favor of ratification, yet they both agreed and disagreed with each other over issues people today insist a consensus was achieved on - geeze!

"The people give power to every government act. Through their representatives. That's kinda the point of a democratic republic." - [MENTION=49869]Skylar[/MENTION]

No, you are confusing democracy and representative government. Many of the most influential founders and framers were AGAINST popular democracy and chose a lesser evil -- representative democracy. We have representative democracy in a republican form of government.

Big D'Oh! "We the Deputies of the People of the Delaware State, in Convention..."

was NOT the state of Delaware, the state legislature or government. You're confused over terms and facts as is par for the course here @ usmb and : read a wiki entry: "Because they incorporated the convention method of ratification into Article V as an alternate route to considering the pro and con arguments of a particular proposed amendment, clearly, the framers of the Constitution wanted a means of sometimes bypassing the state legislatures in the ratification process."

"You claim ' the USC meant what the people who ratified it thought it meant'. Those people were, without exception, representatives of each State. Do you still hold that the constitution means whatever the people ratified it thought it meant?" - [MENTION=49869]Skylar[/MENTION]

Dante doesn't claim the above, Madison did.

One such note: In letters written to Jefferson on March 19th, to Edmund Randolph on April 8th and in particular to George Washington on April 16th (with each letter he becomes more confident and better at fleshing out his ideas) Madison makes the following points:
A "new system" is needed to replace the old. - "To give the new system its proper energy it will be desirable to have it ratified by the authority of the people, and not merely by that of the legislatures." -http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/madison.html

1. It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government.

It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.

Letter from Madison to Everett: August, 1830

---
One note, although Madison's emphasis is on "Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government." Ratification is one of the first times the 'people' as a nation of Americans, belonging to the United States, ratified and gave power and authority to a document and government. Before this they were colonists.

 

[OKTexas]

[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

Anyone with a toilet plunger and a can of Comet can file a lawsuit

You keep using two different parts of the USC. It's okay, it's like the Obama admin used two arguments to defend the constitutionality of the PPACA's mandates

except you are confusing one with the other and mixing them together. They address two different issues. One is specific to building a federal government from scratch and the other addresses a long standing agreement and tradition of a government's right to use eminent domain.

Federal lands that were bought are federal lands. There are arguments floating around all over the blogosphere and wingnut news that have some specs of validity, but... a plunger and a can of Comet

Really, how about you try to file a suit against the government for unconstitutional spending, your suit will be summarily dismissed saying you have no standing.

The feds were not given eminent domain over private lands because Clause 17 denies them legislative authority over private lands. Without legislative authority you have no eminent domain.

BTW a plunger and comet serve two different purposes.

'legislative authority'? Once the federal government has ownership of land, they own it. The federal government does land swaps with state governments all the time.

You must be arguing over the initial taking or possession of land and how it was acquired, what process was used. Your imbecilic notion that the federal government does not have the power of eminent domain is keeping your head up your ass. How do you breath...straws?

All those words and you never address the point, I am talking about private land with a State. The Constitution gives the congress no legislative authority over private lands and you have yet to show me wrong, quote the Constitution.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We need a Constitutional Convention of the States. To put a leash on the Federal Government.

Dante now agrees, except not for the reasons you do.

I think it is high time people changed the government structure completely to what THEY want and get rid of the adoration of the dead white men who include my own ancestors

 

[Kosh]

We need a Constitutional Convention of the States. To put a leash on the Federal Government.

Dante now agrees, except not for the reasons you do.

I think it is high time people changed the government structure completely to what THEY want and get rid of the adoration of the dead white men who include my own ancestors

Yet you will still vote far left! Who have nothing but old white people representing your party!