Discussion in 'Politics' started by Liberty, Jan 8, 2011.
...that is not an enumerated power. I'll wait.
Enumerated power is a matter of interpretation... Power to tax, provide defense, and general welfare cover most of what they do.
I'd ask what specifically you think we're doing that's unconstitutional, but I know how that conversation goes...
Ok, what part of article 1 section 8 do you not understand, and i'll gladly explain it to you.
Oh I dont know though...just to scratch the surface.
Someone emailed me that so yeah I copy pasted it. It's all true, so why trust government?
I'm not sure about the constitutionality of it, but taking money from me to teach Africans how to scrub their ballsacks doesn't seem right.
Why is it the right hates the government the founders left us?
Why, yes, I am familiar with that particular article and section, it contains all three of the things I mentioned above.
This is, of course, where the conversation goes.
You didn't claim anything above was unconstitutional, you're just saying a bunch of stuff is "Broke." Some of it really is, most of it is just hyperbole. But lacking is the mention of constitutionality of any of it.
How about you answer the original question? Why do you, and thus, why should I, trust a corrupt, debt ridden federal government to do ANYTHING on my behalf? What has earned them that trust (not to mention the power to do so, but that's a thread for another time)?
I'm saying its unconstitutional as well, thats why it doesn't work. None of that is in the enumerated powers or the amendments, so again I ask, please convince me to trust the federal government. Thanks.
You shouldn't. Chain e-mails, talking heads, and radical right wing websites are far more trustworthy.
"How, then, did modern constitutional law get so complicated and federal power so expansive? One reason is that several provisions in the Constitution were written broadly to allow for contingencies. But those provisions were never meant to open the floodgates to boundless congressional power. The presumption was that any political redress of unexpected problems would be done with due deference to the larger structure, aims and principles of the document. This brings us to the main reason Congress leapt its constitutional bounds: a fundamental shift in the climate of ideas.
Early 20th-century Progressives, inspired by European social democracies, rejected the Constitution's plan for limited government, advocating social engineering schemes instead. Rule by government experts was the order of the day. As people and politicians succumbed to those ideas, especially in the states, courts would often block the schemes in the name of constitutional liberty. When Progressives later took their agenda to the federal level, however, and the Supreme Court continued to block it, President Franklin D. Roosevelt unveiled his infamous plan to pack the court with six new members.
The threat cowed the court, which in a pair of 1937 decisions (Helvering v. Davis and NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp) essentially gave Congress the power to redistribute and regulate at will, eviscerating the very foundation of the Constitution: the doctrine of enumerated powers. A year later, in U.S. v. Carolene Products, the court reduced property rights and economic liberty to second-class status under the Constitution. And in National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. (1943), it allowed Congress to delegate ever more of its vastly expanded legislative powers to administrative agencies in the quickly expanding executive branch."
Roger Pilon: Congress Rediscovers the Constitution - WSJ.com
Separate names with a comma.