"that's not in the constitution!

[gekaap]

nucular [/I]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.

In other words, you've got straw men and irrelevancies, but nothing more to say....

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

How come you ignore Hamiltons interpretation of General Welfare? Oh I know...because it doesn't fit with your view point.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

I think Flopper is right on, on this one. When the country was founded it was mostly a collection of small farming communities spread out over long distances. The country has changed dramatically and so has the way we govern.

I think it's time for a new constitution. (Like that would ever fly!)

 

[Tech_Esq]

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?

Until you pass a Constitutional amendment saying the Federal Government is now in charge of all health emergencies (unless this is because of biological attack), then the states will decide what's best for the people in their state to do. They have taxing power and can use that authority to pay for whatever they decide. If KS decides to "let God decide" and you don't like that solution, then I guess you better move your ass to Nebraska.

If the federal government decides "its going to let God decide" now whatcha gonna do? Drop back ten and punt?

It seems very difficult to understand now, because we've spend a century or more weakening the state's authority because a bunch of idiots decided that "central planning" sounded like a better idea. Well, it isn't. Granted, states don't have the infrastructure to deal with an emergency like this if we suddenly decide to start obeying the Rule of Law tomorrow, but over time they can.

Or we could decide that this is the type of thing we want the Feds to do, so we pass an amendment. It's not like it's never been done before. Big government people act like is SUCH AN IMPOSITION to actually pass an amendment. It's been done 27 freaking times. It's well trod ground, just do it. Obey the damn law, it's not that hard!

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

How come you ignore Hamiltons interpretation of General Welfare? Oh I know...because it doesn't fit with your view point.

Madison wrote it (this clause). Quit deflecting.

I'm familiar with Madison's Federalist 41 having quoted it here a thousand times. I'll check out Hamilton and get back to you. If it's in the Federalist Papers I've read it but it's been a long time. I'll get back to you.

 

[Avorysuds]

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



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.

Or a third option that you have not mentioned... follow the constitution.

Your version of "We can only do what is specifically mentioned in the constitution" is misleading as you don't credit the power given by the constitution of military as meaning "structure" and "evolution" being that is what it takes to make a military. You simply can't list where the EPA or DoE is covered by the constitution and in doing so you argue "where does the constitution allow a pocket knife in the military."

Your interpretation of the general welfare clause literally voids out the rest of the constitution…
“General Welfare” meant something different back when the constitution was written, and that’s why “they” helped define what it means. It would be similar as to me sayin “Hey, what up yo fuk ass bitch?” to a friend when I see them today VS 200 years ago…

Here is the best part. Your interpretation of the General Welfare clause can be directly linked to trillions in corruption, fraud and one of the main factors if not the main factor on this countries deficit issues today. I have asked this before; at what point does the pay off happen for all of these “must have” programs? When does our economy stop crashing, war’s end and middle class grow. What did YOU not get that “liberals” and neocons alike have pushing for, asked for and more or less received over the last 50+ years?

 

[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.

I think Flopper is right on, on this one. When the country was founded it was mostly a collection of small farming communities spread out over long distances. The country has changed dramatically and so has the way we govern.

I think it's time for a new constitution. (Like that would ever fly!)

We're damned lucky we had a collection of geniuses at the time of our founding. Looking a Capitol Hill right now, I'm not sure I can pick out enough geniuses to fill a phone booth let alone a meeting hall and you want to give them the power to rewrite how you're governed? Are you insane?

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

How come you ignore Hamiltons interpretation of General Welfare? Oh I know...because it doesn't fit with your view point.

Madison wrote it (this clause). Quit deflecting.

I'm familiar with Madison's Federalist 41 having quoted it here a thousand times. I'll check out Hamilton and get back to you. If it's in the Federalist Papers I've read it but it's been a long time. I'll get back to you.

I'm aware of what Madison wrote, I'm not deflecting a thing. I am also aware of what Hamilton wrote, which you failed to mention. All I ask is for a little consistency.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

Or a third option that you have not mentioned... follow the constitution.

Your version of "We can only do what is specifically mentioned in the constitution" is misleading as you don't credit the power given by the constitution of military as meaning "structure" and "evolution" being that is what it takes to make a military. You simply can't list where the EPA or DoE is covered by the constitution and in doing so you argue "where does the constitution allow a pocket knife in the military."

Your interpretation of the general welfare clause literally voids out the rest of the constitution…
“General Welfare” meant something different back when the constitution was written, and that’s why “they” helped define what it means. It would be similar as to me sayin “Hey, what up yo fuk ass bitch?” to a friend when I see them today VS 200 years ago…

Here is the best part. Your interpretation of the General Welfare clause can be directly linked to trillions in corruption, fraud and one of the main factors if not the main factor on this countries deficit issues today. I have asked this before; at what point does the pay off happen for all of these “must have” programs? When does our economy stop crashing, war’s end and middle class grow. What did YOU not get that “liberals” and neocons alike have pushing for, asked for and more or less received over the last 50+ years?

This is as much of a non-answer as I have ever seen. Pat yourself on the back, because that type of doublespeak isn't something that can be taught. It's a natural gift you seem to possess. Holy shit, you must be tired after shoveling that much bull shit. Go take a nap, you've earned it.

 

[Avorysuds]

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?

Until you pass a Constitutional amendment saying the Federal Government is now in charge of all health emergencies (unless this is because of biological attack), then the states will decide what's best for the people in their state to do. They have taxing power and can use that authority to pay for whatever they decide. If KS decides to "let God decide" and you don't like that solution, then I guess you better move your ass to Nebraska.

If the federal government decides "its going to let God decide" now whatcha gonna do? Drop back ten and punt?

It seems very difficult to understand now, because we've spend a century or more weakening the state's authority because a bunch of idiots decided that "central planning" sounded like a better idea. Well, it isn't. Granted, states don't have the infrastructure to deal with an emergency like this if we suddenly decide to start obeying the Rule of Law tomorrow, but over time they can.

Or we could decide that this is the type of thing we want the Feds to do, so we pass an amendment. It's not like it's never been done before. Big government people act like is SUCH AN IMPOSITION to actually pass an amendment. It's been done 27 freaking times. It's well trod ground, just do it. Obey the damn law, it's not that hard!

It sounds like the guy you quoted is well on his way to supporting a King. The idea of States doing ANYTHING for themselves if by far to much freedom, lolz.

 

[Avorysuds]

Pick a side.

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

Or a third option that you have not mentioned... follow the constitution.

Your version of "We can only do what is specifically mentioned in the constitution" is misleading as you don't credit the power given by the constitution of military as meaning "structure" and "evolution" being that is what it takes to make a military. You simply can't list where the EPA or DoE is covered by the constitution and in doing so you argue "where does the constitution allow a pocket knife in the military."

Your interpretation of the general welfare clause literally voids out the rest of the constitution…
“General Welfare” meant something different back when the constitution was written, and that’s why “they” helped define what it means. It would be similar as to me sayin “Hey, what up yo fuk ass bitch?” to a friend when I see them today VS 200 years ago…

Here is the best part. Your interpretation of the General Welfare clause can be directly linked to trillions in corruption, fraud and one of the main factors if not the main factor on this countries deficit issues today. I have asked this before; at what point does the pay off happen for all of these “must have” programs? When does our economy stop crashing, war’s end and middle class grow. What did YOU not get that “liberals” and neocons alike have pushing for, asked for and more or less received over the last 50+ years?

This is as much of a non-answer as I have ever seen. Pat yourself on the back, because that type of doublespeak isn't something that can be taught. It's a natural gift you seem to possess. Holy shit, you must be tired after shoveling that much bull shit. Go take a nap, you've earned it.

Well then, keep supporting your torture, wars and deficit spending mano! When it all falls apart you can blame everyone else =D!

 

[konradv]

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

The basic concept is, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. The ultra-strict constructionists we have here adhere to a more Stalinist line in that they seem to be saying "anything not specifically permitted, is prohibited'! That's NOT what the Fouinders intended. They gave us a short document, open to interpretation, so that it could grow with the country.

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Just to make clear, my (and Madison's) argument against the misconstruction of the General Welfare clause, I quote from Federalist 41: (cited above)

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.

Madison then hammers this interpretation:

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, describing just what illusion one would have to labor under to arrive at such a disjointed conclusion:

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.

As you can see from above, Madison admits that if you believe that the General Welfare clause enable Congress to legislate "all things that are for the General Welfare" then that is tantamount to a license to legislate anything at all. However, the Constitution was created for "LIMITED" government. And, thus, the General Welfare Clause does not give Congress such a license.

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?

You will find the legal maxim for legislative interpretation that applies here is Expressio unis est exclusio alterus. In English, it means if the legislative body was able to recite the things that it wanted to include in the legislation (as Art. I, Section 8 does) then some general reference to additional things (like the General Welfare clause) fails because the legislative body knew how to express what it wanted to be covered and it did so.

 

[Oddball]

^^^^^
Yeah, what he and Madison said.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So do we only go for Madisons interpretation? Because honestly I dont see how that can be applied to modern day America like the Jefferson quote says above

 

[Oddball]

The Jeffersonian solution was to amend the Constitution, not to "interpret" your way around its restrictions to federal power and jurisdiction.

 

[RDD_1210]

So do we only go for Madisons interpretation? Because honestly I dont see how that can be applied to modern day America like the Jefferson quote says above

You notice they haven't brought up Hamiltons viewpoint or Jeffersons? Even though its been pointed it out to them multiple times, they REFUSE to accept that even the founding fathers had different opinions.

 

[Tech_Esq]

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

The basic concept is, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. The ultra-strict constructionists we have here adhere to a more Stalinist line in that they seem to be saying "anything not specifically permitted, is prohibited'! That's NOT what the Fouinders intended. They gave us a short document, open to interpretation, so that it could grow with the country.

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Certainly, Jefferson is correct, however there is a line which cannot be crossed.

If the Constitution give Congress the power to provide for all manner of defense as they knew at the time of writing the Constitution, then they did not mean to exclude the Air Force from it simply because it was not specifically named. (In fact, the Air Force was originally part of the Army and could have remained so if it were a Constitutional impediment.

However, when new functions are created out of whole cloth, like The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Then, authority in the Constitution needs to be created for it.

So, progress need not be stifled nor slowed down. But, Congress must have been granted the authority to legislate on items similar. Congress was granted the ability to legislate in interstate commerce, creating port and other transportation needs. Surely, that means they have the ability to legislate concerning airports and air transportation. And the same for space ports and space transportation.

This is not a hard concept to grasp. I suspect people are being very artificial here.

 

[RDD_1210]

^^^^^
Yeah, what he and Madison said.

Do you always ignore questions and statements that you know you have no logical response for? It seems to be "your thing"

 

[Tech_Esq]

So do we only go for Madisons interpretation? Because honestly I dont see how that can be applied to modern day America like the Jefferson quote says above

Good thing I provided you a guide then.