The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.

[Bern80]

I disagree. Contrast the power to "lay and collect taxes . . . to provide for the general welfare" with a power to "provide for the general welfare," period. Congress, if endowed with that power, could:

1) Outlaw body piercing.
2) Mandate a vegetarian diet.
3) Require all marriages to be interracial.
4) Impose criminal penalties for wearing polyester suits.

Any of these measures could be justified as "providing for the general welfare." None of them go against the Bill of Rights or any other affirmative restrictions on government. But none of them are authorized by the power actually granted to Congress, which is to tax and spend for the general welfare -- not to do whatever the hell it wants for the general welfare.

ergo, if government can basically justify anything to be in the general welfare so to then can it tax for anything it decides to be in the general welfare.

Well, in my opinion there is no need for the 10th Amendment. Its language is just a restatement of the whole concept of federalism: all powers delegated to the federal government belong to it; all those not so delegated belong either to the states, or to no level of government, being retained by the people. Yeah, that about covers all the possibilities.

I guess you could say that the 10th Amendment just reaffirmed that Congress has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution, in case anyone had any doubts about that.

That is a common argument. The problem is without it, it isn't much of a stretch to find very little if anything that the fed doesn't have delegated power over. The ammendment should be a clue to most people that there in fact are things the federal government does not have any authority over.

Yes, I realize that's how Madison interpreted it, but so what? Obviously, his view of things didn't prevail. If it had, the language of that clause would have been different. He was not the author of the Constitution; it was written by a committee, and represents many compromises. On that point, he did not get his way.

Madison is widely considered the primary author of the constitution. That really shouldn't even be open for debate. To the notion that his view didn't prevail in the courts is what one should say 'so what' to. He wrote the document, and later went on to tell people specifically how that section was to be interpreted. That courts decided to rule the other way doesn't make him any less right. What it really means, Dragon, is that people in a governmental position of power decided to grant themselves more power. That's the reality of the future rulings.

 

[Dragon]

I disagree. Contrast the power to "lay and collect taxes . . . to provide for the general welfare" with a power to "provide for the general welfare," period. Congress, if endowed with that power, could:

1) Outlaw body piercing.
2) Mandate a vegetarian diet.
3) Require all marriages to be interracial.
4) Impose criminal penalties for wearing polyester suits.

ergo, if government can basically justify anything to be in the general welfare so to then can it tax for anything it decides to be in the general welfare.

Yes, but it still can't do any of the things I listed above. The power to tax and spend is not a universal power. Any of the powers above would require imposing criminal penalties, for example. Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.

That is a common argument. The problem is without it, it isn't much of a stretch to find very little if anything that the fed doesn't have delegated power over. The ammendment should be a clue to most people that there in fact are things the federal government does not have any authority over.

Well, as I pointed out above, and as the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly, there ARE limits to the federal government's power. That power includes a lot of things that you seem to think it ought not to be doing, but nonetheless it's not unlimited.

Remember that the Bill of Rights was added after the fact. It was not part of the original proposed Constitution. It was the product of a populist, Occupy-Wall-Street-like rebellion, which was able to get a bill of rights added as a condition of ratifying the document. So the 10th Amendment, like the other parts of the BoR, was not part of the Founding Fathers' original design. H/J/M argued against it in the Federalist Papers; in fact -- I forget which one it was -- one of them argued that having a Bill of Rights might actually cause problems because it would create the impression that no other rights existed except as designated. Which is of course pure BS (although maybe that argument is the reason the 9th is in there).

Hmm. I just looked through the language in the unmodified Constitution, and there really is nothing in there to say that Congress doesn't have any other powers than those granted. So maybe the 10th was necessary after all. Otherwise, it wouldn't be clear that Congress couldn't do something not even remotely in one of the enumerated powers, on the grounds that, well, it says we CAN do those things, but it doesn't say we CAN'T do anything else.

In any case, though, the 10th Amendment doesn't say anything about what Congress is or is not authorized to do by the Constitution, it only clarifies that whatever it's not authorized to do remains a state power, or one retained by the people.

Madison is widely considered the primary author of the constitution. That really shouldn't even be open for debate.

No, that is simply false. He is known as the "Father of the Constitution" for another reason entirely, being one of the main people pushing for major revisions to the Articles of Confederation. It could be argued that without him, there wouldn't have even been a constitutional convention, which is enough to merit the title, but in no way implies authorship. If you look at the actual records of how the convention operated, you'll find that his principle role other than diplomacy was as a proponent of the "Virginia Plan." See here: Virginia Plan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Virginia Plan would have had two houses of the legislature, both proportional to the population of the states, and is also therefore known as the "Large State Plan." It was opposed by delegates from small states for obvious reasons. The plan of Congress ultimately approved was a compromise between Madison's plan and the "Small State Plan," which called for a single delegate per state to Congress in a unicameral legislature (just as in the Articles of Confederation). This was one of many compromises in the document. Others concerned the president, and also the powers delegated to Congress.

The claim that Madison "wrote the Constitution" simply has no basis in fact.

 

[Brutus]

Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.

it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.

it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.

It's not a criminal penalty.
If it were, there'd need to be a trial.

 

[Dragon]

Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.

it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.

It's not a criminal penalty.
If it were, there'd need to be a trial.

And it would be clearly unconstitutional, too. The way it's written, with no criminal penalties only a tax, it's not so clear and that's why the Supreme Court has it now.

 

[Brutus]

Congress is not authorized to impose criminal penalties to provide for the general welfare.

it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.

It's not a criminal penalty.
If it were, there'd need to be a trial.

Tax fraud is a criminal act

 

[M14 Shooter]

it would be an implied power!! If they can force you to buy health insurance the force implies a criminal penalty in the end. This is why the Affordable Care Act authorized 20,000 new IRS agents,i.e., liberals with guns and jails.

It's not a criminal penalty.
If it were, there'd need to be a trial.

Tax fraud is a criminal act

Yes... but the penalty for not carrying insurance is the tax itself.

 

[Dragon]

It's still not clear that the tax would be constitutional. This might run into the same problem that the AAA did, that the fed. government can't regulate by the back door, through taxing and spending, what it isn't authorized to regulate directly. The government can't say, "You have to buy health insurance or you'll pay a fine." Does it become acceptable merely if it calls the fine a "tax"? I have my doubts about that. Obviously, so do the courts.

 

[Brutus]

It's not a criminal penalty.
If it were, there'd need to be a trial.

Tax fraud is a criminal act

Yes... but the penalty for not carrying insurance is the tax itself.

yes $695 a year when that is the monthly cost for buying insurance. So, people won't pay until the liberals with guns show up

 

[geauxtohell]

There have probably been bigger thread-fails, but I can't remember seeing them.

 

[Brutus]

There have probably been bigger thread-fails, but I can't remember seeing them.

of course if so you would not be so afraid to explain why it is a failure. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Madison is widely considered the primary author of the constitution. That really shouldn't even be open for debate. To the notion that his view didn't prevail in the courts is what one should say 'so what' to. He wrote the document, and later went on to tell people specifically how that section was to be interpreted.

Even if the ‘primary author,’ Madison was no dictator, and he authored the Constitution for the convention and American people, not for his faction alone. The Hamiltonian paradigm was just as valid and was just as prevalent among the Framers.

That courts decided to rule the other way doesn't make him any less right. What it really means, Dragon, is that people in a governmental position of power decided to grant themselves more power. That's the reality of the future rulings.

Nor does it make the courts ‘wrong.’ Since 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the courts have recognized Congress possesses unenumerated powers that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution: "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

 

[AVG-JOE]

There have probably been bigger thread-fails, but I can't remember seeing them.

of course if so you would not be so afraid to explain why it is a failure. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ ?

 

[Brutus]

The Hamiltonian paradigm was just as valid and was just as prevalent among the Framers.

of course once the Constitution was adopted and everyone got to see Hamiltons "paradigm" in action they rejected it.The big government liberal Federalist Party was defeated never to be heard from again.

 

[Dragon]

While the original concept of the thread was indeed a big fail, we have since moved on to discuss the Constitution overall. I suggest simply ignoring the OP, and also everything Brutus has to say. This thread will retain some value and you will only be ignoring the unimportant fluff.

 

[Brutus]

Congress possesses unenumerated powers ."

of course to the liberal this means any socialist or communist power they want which is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Since 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the courts have recognized Congress possesses unenumerated powers that are not explicitly outlined in the Constitution: "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

The Court, in McCulloch, stated that the Elastic Clause allowes the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the enumerated powers, provided those laws are relevant to the execution of said powers:

If the end be clearly comprehended within any of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by any particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority. There is also this further criterion which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any State, or of any individual? If it does not, there is a strong presumption in favour of its constitutionality....

Thus, the ruling here isnt exactly as expansive as you'd like us to think, given that the laws in question must still be related to an enumerated power and cannot violate the rights of the states/people.

 

[Brutus]

Where exactly is it stated that however a judge rules, no matter what the ruling, it is always thereafter to be considered to be constitutional?

this is a good point! Jefferson and Madison and in fact the whole country had no idea whatsoever that the Court would be so important. Judicial Review started with Marbury v Madison, but that case was not used for 100 years thereafter. Renquist said it eventually became the most import case ever, but for the first 100 years no one dreamed how liberally it would later be misintrepreted.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Congress possesses unenumerated powers ."

of course to the liberal this means any socialist or communist power they want which is clearly unconstitutional.

yes, after Roe they can find any power they want in the Constitution regardless of whether the Congress has passed a law or not. Liberalism is clearly unconstitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Thus, the ruling here isnt exactly as expansive as you'd like us to think, given that the laws in question must still be related to an enumerated power and cannot violate the rights of the states/people.

Which was never at issue.

The error concerns the notion that the states have the ‘right’ to reject Federal laws they alone perceive to be ‘un-Constitutional,’ or to likewise ignore Federal courts. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

yes, after Roe they can find any power they want in the Constitution regardless of whether the Congress has passed a law or not. Liberalism is clearly unconstitutional.

Does that also include the right to self-defense and the individual to own a handgun?

If so conservatism is clearly just as un-Constitutional.