"that's not in the constitution!

[Wry Catcher]

So are Woodrow Wilson, FDR and LBJ.

Idjit.

How do you know James Madison would disagree today? Please provide proof, your opinions are worthless.

Speaking of worthless and you chime right in.

How about another geography lesson for us numbnutz?

Hey dirt bag, how the hell you doing? Why do you always focus on the male anatomy? (Oh, of course)

 

[RDD_1210]

If that lame-assed, silly-assed argument held any water at all, why doesn't Article 1, Section 8 not just read:

"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;

The End"

?

Why won't you answer my question?

I did answer you....You just didn't comprehend it.

If the concept of enumerated powers is so off base, why go to the trouble of making a list of enumerated powers?

Ok, so we are back where we started. You claim it MUST be specifically mentioned to be constitutional. Please tell me if you disagree with that.

 

[Avorysuds]

Which part of that covers our Nuclear weapons?

I'm not pro nukes but what part covers making guns, knives or any weapons? That's right, you're a fucking moron so please stop.

So what are you saying? The constitution doesn't need to explicitly state something to make it constitutional?

Correct... It COVERS specific things in the constitution... For instance, the constitution covers defense making bombs, boot camps, boots, socks, knives and most military stuff ok...

Again, not a single area in the constitution covers food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid/Medicare part D/ Obamacare, Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya wars, DoE, FED and so on…

The best you guys have come up with is the welfare clause that of course is defined pretty fucking clearly in the federalist papers as not being anything like how you reeeeaaalllly want it to mean.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

My point of view is irrelevant?

What you call over reaching is irrelevant to the question of whether they are acting legally. I think it's over reaching for the government to prohibit marijuana use. But my thoughts on the matter don't change the fact that it's a constitutional law.

Are you contending that every action taken by the EPA, USDoE, etc. originates as a law passed by congress and signed by the President? I.e., new greenhouse gas regulations....

It is not necessary for every action to originate in Congress and be signed by the President. The Congress need only grant authorization to act. To use the EPA as an example, it was created by executive order to enforce environmental laws. One of those laws, passed by Congress, is the Clean Air Act, which requires the EPA to develop and enforce regulations regarding greenhouse gases, among other things. This power has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional, with the court actually going beyond the question of "power" and pointing out the fact that under federal law the EPA is required to develop and enforce such regulations.

But that's not what he said. Then what's to stop the EPA from telling me that I can't eat beans because they cause flatulence which destroy the ozone?

We have political appointees with an agenda regulating our lives... I doubt this was envisioned when our republic was established.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How do you know James Madison would disagree today? Please provide proof, your opinions are worthless.

Speaking of worthless and you chime right in.

How about another geography lesson for us numbnutz?

Hey dirt bag, how the hell you doing? Why do you always focus on the male anatomy? (Oh, of course)

And why are you obsessed with homosexuality? Congrats... you're the newest addition to my ignore list.

 

[gekaap]

LOLz!


The best part is where you say the Oddball wants only what is listed in the constitution to exist then say Oddball does not like our country...

Well if the country we live in is defined by our constitution and you find yourself supporting many if not all programs that the constitution does not allow while at the same time condemning the constitution for its boundaries you might find it is YOU that does not like this country.


Fucking LOLOLOZ!~~

I'm amazed that you can't even see the way that your own argument folds back and contradicts itself. I never said that I support a hyper restrictive interpretation of the constitution. Quite the opposite, I rejected that notion. I support an interpretation where elected Representatives and Senators, chosen by the people, can meaningfully select a government to assemble in Congress, who then make important decisions and actually have the power to implement the will of the people. I support a view of the constitution that it was not meant to tie our hands such that we must sit and do nothing while our country becomes so weak that it dies. Your failed attempt to characterize my argument is contradictory as it suggests that I both affirm hyper restrictive boundaries that would be detrimental to our well being as a country, and a non restrictive view, all at the same time. That is not the case. I do not condemn the constitution for its boundaries. I have only explained that the hyper restrictive boundaries that some would suggest are necessary, are obviously in contradiction to other accepted practices and acts of government.

 

[RDD_1210]

I'm not pro nukes but what part covers making guns, knives or any weapons? That's right, you're a fucking moron so please stop.

So what are you saying? The constitution doesn't need to explicitly state something to make it constitutional?

Correct... It COVERS specific things in the constitution... For instance, the constitution covers defense making bombs, boot camps, boots, socks, knives and most military stuff ok...

So Nuclear weapons would be covered under what? You are making assumptions under what should be covered.

Again, not a single area in the constitution covers food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid/Medicare part D/ Obamacare, Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya wars, DoE, FED and so on…

The best you guys have come up with is the welfare clause that of course is defined pretty fucking clearly in the federalist papers as not being anything like how you reeeeaaalllly want it to mean.

And Alexander Hamilton clearly defined what he wanted General Welfare to mean. So where does that leave us? That's right, we are to interpret what the constitution means and not take it so literally. Otherwise, we'd have no air force, nuclear weapons, overseas military bases, etc...

 

[Flopper]

To expect the government to operate as it did in 1776 is ridiculous. There was no need for Social Security or Medicare because life expectancy was only about 35. There was no need for health insurance because most healthcare was administered at home. There was no illegal immigration because our doors were open to everyone. There was little public education. The primary energy source was wood and there was plenty of that. There is no way the founders could have seen a need for most of the services performed by government today so you can't expect it to be explicitly called out in the Constitution.

The major difference was that in colonial times this country was more of a confederation for mutual defense and trade than a nation, something akin to the British Commonwealth.

Gonna need a trawler to reel in all them red herrings.

What is probably needed is a Constitution Convention to modernize the constitution. There is too much interpretation. Out of the general welfare clause springs almost half of all government expenditures.

 

[gekaap]

I guess by that dipshit's argument, our military is only authorized to use muskets and bayonets and our Navy can only have wooden sailing ships.

Oh, now with the name calling, eh? I guess you've got nothing else, so you have to resort to childish tactics. I never said that our military has to be restricted in such a way. In fact, I reject that kind of idea. All I've done is pointed out that such would be the logically necessary result of a hyper restrictive interpretation of the constitution. So, if anything, it's YOU who are making the arguments that would lead us to muskets and wooden Naval ships.

 

[Oddball]

To expect the government to operate as it did in 1776 is ridiculous. There was no need for Social Security or Medicare because life expectancy was only about 35. There was no need for health insurance because most healthcare was administered at home. There was no illegal immigration because our doors were open to everyone. There was little public education. The primary energy source was wood and there was plenty of that. There is no way the founders could have seen a need for most of the services performed by government today so you can't expect it to be explicitly called out in the Constitution.

The major difference was that in colonial times this country was more of a confederation for mutual defense and trade than a nation, something akin to the British Commonwealth.

Gonna need a trawler to reel in all them red herrings.

What is probably needed is a Constitution Convention to modernize the constitution. There is too much interpretation. Out of the general welfare clause springs almost half of all government expenditures.

Out of misapplication of the general welfare clause, anyways.

 

[gekaap]

Actually that is EXACTLY what the 10th Amendment says.

No it does not, and you know it. Stop trying to insert into the constitution that which is not there.

Which is why the Founders left us with the ability to AMEND the document.... so that when things like the USAF came along they could be added to the list of Constitutional expenditures. That doesn't mean that you can simply do it because you want to. It requires amending the document, just as a Dept. of Education, Energy, HUD, etc... does.

Let me get this straight.....you would say that the USAF is an unconstitutional entity? You're prepared to take us back to muskets and wooden ships?

 

[Avorysuds]

So what are you saying? The constitution doesn't need to explicitly state something to make it constitutional?

Correct... It COVERS specific things in the constitution... For instance, the constitution covers defense making bombs, boot camps, boots, socks, knives and most military stuff ok...

So Nuclear weapons would be covered under what? You are making assumptions under what should be covered.

Again, not a single area in the constitution covers food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid/Medicare part D/ Obamacare, Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya wars, DoE, FED and so on…

The best you guys have come up with is the welfare clause that of course is defined pretty fucking clearly in the federalist papers as not being anything like how you reeeeaaalllly want it to mean.

And Alexander Hamilton clearly defined what he wanted General Welfare to mean. So where does that leave us? That's right, we are to interpret what the constitution means and not take it so literally. Otherwise, we'd have no air force, nuclear weapons, overseas military bases, etc...

Ah! Great so you have no issue with what Bush or Obama has done, Reagan or FDR! It's all just how they *see* the constitution! Good work man! Some of the smallest Government people (the founding fathers) that the world has ever seen can now interpreted as really wanting to be the biggest Government people.

Thank you General Welfare clause! You have officially made the rest of the constitution obsolete, of course depending on how you interpret the welfare clause!

 

[gekaap]

But that's not what he said. Then what's to stop the EPA from telling me that I can't eat beans because they cause flatulence which destroy the ozone?

What is the point of a response like this? You're just being absurd and thick headed. Gee, what's stop Martians from landing and sucking out your brains. What's to stop the government from using microwaves to brainwash everyone. What's to stop the radiation coming from Japan from mutating mice into super smart rodents who learn how to read and use the internet, get pissed off at something you post, and then finding your house and moving there en masse, farting for days under your house and finally lighting a match to blow you to high Heaven in the middle of the night?

We have political appointees with an agenda regulating our lives... I doubt this was envisioned when our republic was established.

Sounds like you should vote. That way, you can be sure that you've had your fair share of a say in who gets elected into office. And if that doesn't make you feel better, then maybe you can move to a different country. I get so tired of conservatives talking about the constitution, while doing nothing but bitching and complaining about our system of government.

 

[konradv]

There's nothing there that says that a question or issue or act must be explicitly described in the constitution for the federal government to be able to do it. It's not necessary for the constitution to give explicit authorization to create a Department of Education, in order for the federal government to be allowed to do it. This is why all this BS from so many extremist conservatives is exactly that. All this stuff that is supposedly unconstitutional, yet is regularly held up by the courts as being constitutional. Oh yeah, that's right, I forgot. We explain that away as judicial activism. It's all a grand conspiracy to destroy the constitution! Cue the Freemasons!

Actually that is EXACTLY what the 10th Amendment says.

I've explained this before, but I'll go again. The problem with this line of thinking is that it requires taking an ultra restrictive interpretation of the constitution. If we do adopt such a position, then the majority of military endeavors become unconstitutional. Since the constitution explicitly grants power to Congress to raise armies and navies, but makes no mention of an Air Force. Thus, an ultra restrictive interpretation of the constitution would require an amendment to make creating, maintaining, and funding the Air Force a legal action.

Which is why the Founders left us with the ability to AMEND the document.... so that when things like the USAF came along they could be added to the list of Constitutional expenditures. That doesn't mean that you can simply do it because you want to. It requires amending the document, just as a Dept. of Education, Energy, HUD, etc... does.

Those departments don't require an amendment because no other departments, including State, Defense, etc., are mentioned either. The Constitution simply states that the president may have advisers, as if he wouldn't have if they hadn't mentioned it! The Cabinet as it's constituted today are simply those advisers and the Constitution does not limit their number or portfolios.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

But that's not what he said. Then what's to stop the EPA from telling me that I can't eat beans because they cause flatulence which destroy the ozone?

What is the point of a response like this? You're just being absurd and thick headed. Gee, what's stop Martians from landing and sucking out your brains. What's to stop the government from using microwaves to brainwash everyone. What's to stop the radiation coming from Japan from mutating mice into super smart rodents who learn how to read and use the internet, get pissed off at something you post, and then finding your house and moving there en masse, farting for days under your house and finally lighting a match to blow you to high Heaven in the middle of the night?

We have political appointees with an agenda regulating our lives... I doubt this was envisioned when our republic was established.

Sounds like you should vote. That way, you can be sure that you've had your fair share of a say in who gets elected into office. And if that doesn't make you feel better, then maybe you can move to a different country. I get so tired of conservatives talking about the constitution, while doing nothing but bitching and complaining about our system of government.

I do vote and I was illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Kinda like contending that nucular weapons are unconstitutional as a counter to a rational argument that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Or, contending that the General Welfare clause covers everything from federally funded abortion to free haircuts for everybody.

 

[RDD_1210]

Correct... It COVERS specific things in the constitution... For instance, the constitution covers defense making bombs, boot camps, boots, socks, knives and most military stuff ok...

So Nuclear weapons would be covered under what? You are making assumptions under what should be covered.

Again, not a single area in the constitution covers food stamps, Medicare/Medicaid/Medicare part D/ Obamacare, Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya wars, DoE, FED and so on…

The best you guys have come up with is the welfare clause that of course is defined pretty fucking clearly in the federalist papers as not being anything like how you reeeeaaalllly want it to mean.

And Alexander Hamilton clearly defined what he wanted General Welfare to mean. So where does that leave us? That's right, we are to interpret what the constitution means and not take it so literally. Otherwise, we'd have no air force, nuclear weapons, overseas military bases, etc...

Ah! Great so you have no issue with what Bush or Obama has done, Reagan or FDR! It's all just how they *see* the constitution! Good work man! Some of the smallest Government people (the founding fathers) that the world has ever seen can now interpreted as really wanting to be the biggest Government people.

Thank you General Welfare clause! You have officially made the rest of the constitution obsolete, of course depending on how you interpret the welfare clause!

Pick a side.

We are able to determine what the constitution means
OR
We can only do what is specifically mentioned in the constitution.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So basically thing do not have to be in the constitution for them to be constitutional. It's all up to interpretation is what I'm seeing

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is the Fall of 2013 and the Southern Hemisphere experienced a deadly flu, causing death to one in three residents in Australia, NZ, Argentian and Chile during their Winter. The WHO, doctors and scientists around the world argue that the Fall and Winter in the Northern Hemisphere will be worse. The flu spreads quickly and kills after weeks of agony; children and seniors dies in greater numbers and the numbers in the first week of October suggest the worst will befall our nation.

What would Madison do?

What would President Palin do? Nowhere in the Constitution is there authorization for the Federal Government to act. Does President Palin tell the several states to act? Does she ask the new Speaker of the House, Mr Ryan to act? What would Mr. Ryan do? Consult Madison?

What if Kansas decided to let God's will determine the outcome? Would President Palin quarantine Kansas? If so, under what authority? Executive Order? Would Judicial Relief be sought by Kansas? How would the Robert's Court respond to a writ of certiorari?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Speaking of worthless and you chime right in.

How about another geography lesson for us numbnutz?

Hey dirt bag, how the hell you doing? Why do you always focus on the male anatomy? (Oh, of course)

And why are you obsessed with homosexuality? Congrats... you're the newest addition to my ignore list.

I'm not concerned with your homosexuality, I simply wonder why you need to bring up male anatomy in a politcal post. You must admit, it is rather strange.

 

[Tech_Esq]

To expect the government to operate as it did in 1776 is ridiculous. There was no need for Social Security or Medicare because life expectancy was only about 35. There was no need for health insurance because most healthcare was administered at home. There was no illegal immigration because our doors were open to everyone. There was little public education. The primary energy source was wood and there was plenty of that. There is no way the founders could have seen a need for most of the services performed by government today so you can't expect it to be explicitly called out in the Constitution.

The major difference was that in colonial times this country was more of a confederation for mutual defense and trade than a nation, something akin to the British Commonwealth.

Gonna need a trawler to reel in all them red herrings.

What is probably needed is a Constitution Convention to modernize the constitution. There is too much interpretation. Out of the general welfare clause springs almost half of all government expenditures.

The General Welfare clause is, of itself, without effect. If you will look really closely, you'll find that clause ends with a semi-colon, that means, stay-tuned.....we're gonna tell you what we mean by "General Welfare" and "provide for the common defense" etc. If you would care to read James Madison's blistering rebuke of people who wish to read the clause as you do, and what he thinks of your ability to read the English language, you can find it in Federalist 41 read the last 4 paragraphs.

As for what the Constitution means, I'm going with the guy that wrote it. He probably understands it better than you.