Freedom?

[antagon]

i dont think the constitution is this government-limiting fantasy many make it out to be. it grants congress and the government significant powers and provides them with a mechanism to alter the constitution to suit their needs.

i think snatching at the constitution in the manner that the OP does is disingenuous. the constitution is no holy book, but the OP is an example of folks who wield the authority in respected documents to frame up their own perspectives on how things should be. the constitution lays out a challenge to americans to help determine the course of the republic, and i argue that we are on that course. we don't always get what we want, but that is largely due to the will of others in the system that the constitution has laid out. the will of americans. are you with us or not?

 

[DiamondDave]

try SPECIFIC powers and a means to amend the constitution that is not an easy task... hence limiting the chance of expanding governmental powers by whim

 

[antagon]

the powers in the constitution are not specific. their form has been left to the enforcement of the judicial branch. congress' powers are limited to those enumerated, however, that enumeration is not narrow per sa.

the united states is not and has never been a paper government; that has never been the aim of the constitution. it is people government. of and by.

 

[Tech_Esq]

i dont think the constitution is this government-limiting fantasy many make it out to be. it grants congress and the government significant powers and provides them with a mechanism to alter the constitution to suit their needs.

i think snatching at the constitution in the manner that the OP does is disingenuous. the constitution is no holy book, but the OP is an example of folks who wield the authority in respected documents to frame up their own perspectives on how things should be. the constitution lays out a challenge to americans to help determine the course of the republic, and i argue that we are on that course. we don't always get what we want, but that is largely due to the will of others in the system that the constitution has laid out. the will of americans. are you with us or not?

Well, I wouldn't go that far. The Constitution is not a Holy Book, no. However, it is the fundamental basis of the rule of law in this country. If you undermine it, if you fail to respect the limitations placed on government, if you twist it until it is unrecognizable, then you undermine the rule of law.

For instance, there can be no doubt that the founder's intent when creating the Constitution was to create a limited central government with enough, but not too many powers. Can it truly be said today that we have a "limited" central government? I think not. The commerce clause has been twisted to mean whatever Congress says it means and the 10th Amendment has been gutted thereby breaking the checks and balances system between the states and the federal government.

There is a method provided for changing the constitution when it becomes too ancient and cumbersome, it's call the Amendment process. Just like any other contract, this social contract does not live and breath, nor does it need to to remain relevant and vibrant.

 

[Tech_Esq]

the powers in the constitution are not specific. their form has been left to the enforcement of the judicial branch. congress' powers are limited to those enumerated, however, that enumeration is not narrow per sa.

the united states is not and has never been a paper government; that has never been the aim of the constitution. it is people government. of and by.

The judicial branch does not enforce the laws. The executive does that.

The federal government's powers are definitely supposed to be limited and they were for 150 years. The last 70 or so, not so much. But, just because shit changed in the 1940s doesn't mean we all have to live with a bunch of horrific decisions. Dred Scott isn't still good law. Plessy isn't good law. Darby and Wickard don't need to be good law either.

Just as an example of how radically the court changed the way America operated in the Roosevelt era: The court overruled 44 cases between 1933 and 1944. That is a tremendous number of cases to be overruled in such a short period of time. I think, we took a wrong turn when the court ignored the principles of "stare decisis" and went off making up law. Some of this error needs to be corrected and the sooner the better.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/scourt.html

 

[antagon]

the powers in the constitution are not specific. their form has been left to the enforcement of the judicial branch. congress' powers are limited to those enumerated, however, that enumeration is not narrow per sa.

the united states is not and has never been a paper government; that has never been the aim of the constitution. it is people government. of and by.

The judicial branch does not enforce the laws. The executive does that.

this depends on what you mean by enforcement. if you mean signing laws and seeing to their faithful execution this is true, but with regard to cases questioning the impact of the constitution on these laws, the judiciary is the arbiter. this is the constitutionally endowed role which you and the daves are criticizing.

The federal government's powers are definitely supposed to be limited and they were for 150 years. The last 70 or so, not so much. But, just because shit changed in the 1940s doesn't mean we all have to live with a bunch of horrific decisions. Dred Scott isn't still good law. Plessy isn't good law. Darby and Wickard don't need to be good law either.

potentially they don't, but there's not much standing for such to be the case at the moment. i believe the fair tax is far too stupid a legislation to go anywhere, but if i'm wrong, it could be the next test of the commerce clause's reach into intrastate activities.

despite your opinion, article 1 section 8 does not effectively limit the powers of congress; the tenth amendment does not amend the necessary and proper clause or imply any limitation of congress to strict confines of the enumerated powers. as i said earlier, the constitution is not a document drafted with limiting government in mind. instead, it reflected lessons learned from the article's weaknesses and severally implemented measures to empower the central government. in so doing, broad powers are granted the legislature, which is pretty much what runs the government.

these men spoke, read and wrote english proficiently. prolifically even. the fact that the constitution is not so wordy a document aimed at ensuring another confederacy debacle supports the idea that this was not the intent, but the opposite.

understanding this and what the constitution does say makes the role of the concerned citizen either a voter or a candidate for office, not a whiner about considerably more convincing findings of the judiciary.

Just as an example of how radically the court changed the way America operated in the Roosevelt era: The court overruled 44 cases between 1933 and 1944. That is a tremendous number of cases to be overruled in such a short period of time. I think, we took a wrong turn when the court ignored the principles of "stare decisis" and went off making up law. Some of this error needs to be corrected and the sooner the better.

the court didn't make up law, buddy. this is where you and the daves' credibility is shot. if you feel that you possess a better argument than the court justices' or that the constitution was drafted errantly, come out and say it. to mischaracterize the constitution or the supreme court is my idea of bullshit.

stare decisis is about situations which are settled, but on the 44 cases you mention, and in the 140-some since, the supreme court has exercised an obligation to unsettle such issues for which a case at hand presents valid arguments. hopes in paper government and ancient precedent are not supportable by the constitution itself. these are the throes of desperados disenfranchised by the democratic process the way i see it. suck salt; better luck next time.

 

[Tech_Esq]

the powers in the constitution are not specific. their form has been left to the enforcement of the judicial branch. congress' powers are limited to those enumerated, however, that enumeration is not narrow per sa.

the united states is not and has never been a paper government; that has never been the aim of the constitution. it is people government. of and by.

The judicial branch does not enforce the laws. The executive does that.

this depends on what you mean by enforcement. if you mean signing laws and seeing to their faithful execution this is true, but with regard to cases questioning the impact of the constitution on these laws, the judiciary is the arbiter. this is the constitutionally endowed role which you and the daves are criticizing.

The federal government's powers are definitely supposed to be limited and they were for 150 years. The last 70 or so, not so much. But, just because shit changed in the 1940s doesn't mean we all have to live with a bunch of horrific decisions. Dred Scott isn't still good law. Plessy isn't good law. Darby and Wickard don't need to be good law either.

potentially they don't, but there's not much standing for such to be the case at the moment. i believe the fair tax is far too stupid a legislation to go anywhere, but if i'm wrong, it could be the next test of the commerce clause's reach into intrastate activities.

despite your opinion, article 1 section 8 does not effectively limit the powers of congress; the tenth amendment does not amend the necessary and proper clause or imply any limitation of congress to strict confines of the enumerated powers. as i said earlier, the constitution is not a document drafted with limiting government in mind. instead, it reflected lessons learned from the article's weaknesses and severally implemented measures to empower the central government. in so doing, broad powers are granted the legislature, which is pretty much what runs the government.

these men spoke, read and wrote english proficiently. prolifically even. the fact that the constitution is not so wordy a document aimed at ensuring another confederacy debacle supports the idea that this was not the intent, but the opposite.

understanding this and what the constitution does say makes the role of the concerned citizen either a voter or a candidate for office, not a whiner about considerably more convincing findings of the judiciary.

Just as an example of how radically the court changed the way America operated in the Roosevelt era: The court overruled 44 cases between 1933 and 1944. That is a tremendous number of cases to be overruled in such a short period of time. I think, we took a wrong turn when the court ignored the principles of "stare decisis" and went off making up law. Some of this error needs to be corrected and the sooner the better.

the court didn't make up law, buddy. this is where you and the daves' credibility is shot. if you feel that you possess a better argument than the court justices' or that the constitution was drafted errantly, come out and say it. to mischaracterize the constitution or the supreme court is my idea of bullshit.

stare decisis is about situations which are settled, but on the 44 cases you mention, and in the 140-some since, the supreme court has exercised an obligation to unsettle such issues for which a case at hand presents valid arguments. hopes in paper government and ancient precedent are not supportable by the constitution itself. these are the throes of desperados disenfranchised by the democratic process the way i see it. suck salt; better luck next time.

For some odd reason you've decided to prove my points, although unintentionally, I suspect. Your side have had it their way for the last 70 years. I wonder if you will be so sanguine about all of this power you give the judicial oligarchy when the decisions start breaking against you for decade after decade?

But, that's neither here nor there. Your arguments are factually incorrect and you have no basis for attempting to shout down my just criticisms of the court.

In the first place, your contention that the court holds the power of judicial review by virtue of a Constitutional grant of power is wrong. No place in the Constitution is the Supreme Court granted the power to say what the law is. This power was usurped by the court in Marbury v. Madison (1804), when Chief Justice Marshall claim that power for the court. The other branches of the government have not ceded this power to the court completely, by the way. Executives have, throughout the past two centuries claimed the power is a shared power between them an the court. Most recently both Obama and Bush have used signing statements to say what the law is. Other executives have used other methods. Congress of course uses its own techniques to do the same thing.

Back to enforcing the laws, the executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws, if you are claiming something else, you are mistaken. Read the Constitution, it's right in there.

The courts are set up under the Constitution to hear cases or controversies arising under the laws of the United States within the limitations imposed by Article III. This is not law enforcement.

My opinion of Article I, Section 8 is shared by the founders. Yours is shared by socialists. Mine is valid, yours is a steaming pile of shit. Sorry, but you started it. I shall endeavor to back it up though.

From The Federalist 41: (James Madison, author of the Constitution)

Under the first view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the first question.

The question posed, Madison answers by combing through each of the limited powers in turn. Eventually, he gets to his point about whether the Federal Government has received an unlimited grant of power advocated by Anagon:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Madison continues:

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter

Madison thinks he wrote a Constitution for a national government with limited powers. I'm sticking with Madison, you can stick with Marx if you want to. You've really given me so much, I could go on for days about how misguided you are, but I'll stop there for you to reconsider your opinion in light of better information. Perhaps you've been persuaded?

 

[2Parties]

I do think our governments have strayed far beyond the limits we the people established in the constitution.

3 choices:

You are a reincarnated member of someone who signed it.
You actually did sign it.
Neither.

Which one? "We the People" had nothing to do with the US Constitution anymore than "We The People" established Jim Crow laws or "We The People" imprisoned the Japanese in WWII...

 

[antagon]

don't play yourself tech. nothing which you have presented is persuasive. the fact of the matter is that the constitution was specifically drafted without the more precise wording that the articles of confederation were drawn with and after considerable debate.

your claim about marbury is just your silly angle, while it is true that all branches have a claim to the same power, art. III.2 makes a pretty clear statement about whose judgment is supreme:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

and further...

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

it's as simple as that. marbury wasn't usurpery, dummy, it was the first definitive exercise of the above which for the avoidance of doubt held by congress or the executive at the time (and yourself 200 years on) set a standard for applying the law of the constitution.

your sour grapes go back that far?