The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.

[Bern80]

A semi-colon is used to link that which comes after it to that which comes after it.

Wrong. A semicolon implies no link whatsoever. Here's a rule of thumb: wherever you see a semicolon used properly, it can be replaced by a period. The semicolon serves essentially the same purpose.

Madison explained it best in what I quoted in stating that if it really is YOUR interpretation this is correct then the enumerated powers shouldn't even be there in the first place. What point is there in being more specific in what government is allowed to spend money on, if all they really have to do is adhere to a broad interpretation of the clause itself?

Only the first enumerated power is a spending power. The others are different, and each is separate from the first power just as it is separate from them. The power to tax and spend does not imply: [note the colon, not semicolon, here for future grammatical reference]

1) the power to borrow money;
2) the power to regulate commerce;
3) any functions of criminal law, including prescribing punishments for such things as counterfeiting or piracy;
4) the power to set standards of weights and measures, or to legislate copyright, trademark, and patent law;
5) the power to coin money;
6) the power to raise armies and navies (as this requires many actions besides spending money);
7) the power to declare war or make rules governing the conduct in war or prescribe rules for the militia;
8) the power to establish courts of law; or
9) the complete legislative authority over the U.S. capital.

Nor does it encompass all laws necessary and proper to carrying out the powers granted Congress under the Constitution.

There's really no way around it but by twisting. The first enumerated power is a separate power. It grants nearly-unlimited power to Congress to tax and to spend the proceeds of taxation. It does not grant any powers other than the spending of money, however -- the "general welfare" clause is not an enumerated power by itself, but a modification of the power to tax and spend. Congress cannot for example outlaw body-piercing and claim that this is in service to the general welfare, however much many of us might agree with that sentiment.

And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.

 

[Dragon]

And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.

As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.

The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.

 

[Bern80]

And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.

As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.

The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.

If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.

The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.

As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.

Hundreds? Not quite. There were 55 delegates to the first constitutional convention and they all had some influence in it, however, James Madison is considered to be the "Father of the Constitution." Madison also co-authored the Federalist Papers, which were written to explain how the Constitution worked.

 

[The T]

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?

Actually, I think it was designed to keep people like you from ruling over the rest of us like a bunch of authoritarian fucktards.

But even the Authoritarinas are having thier way by crafting LAW that ultimately usurps the Constitution and the Anendment process.

Note how long it has taken us to get where we are legislatively?

And of Amndments and the process? The two that started the roller coaster ride downhill were the 16th and 17th...and the creation of the Federal Reserve...and ALL to make the process slow...but easier to impliment. (Courtesy of the Progressives of the time I might add).

 

[Brutus]

america-was-born-liberal.[/url]

if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? There is just no other explanation. Sorry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.

Whether Madison is the ‘primary author’ or not is of no matter; all that matters is how the Court interprets the Founding Document.

The justices base their rulings on primary documents of the Foundation Era, case law prior to the Foundation Era, and subsequent Court rulings.

The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘libs’ or ‘falling back’ on anything. The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means through the process of judicial review.

Hundreds? Not quite. There were 55 delegates to the first constitutional convention and they all had some influence in it, however, James Madison is considered to be the "Father of the Constitution." Madison also co-authored the Federalist Papers, which were written to explain how the Constitution worked.

The Framers were not of one mind, they did not speak with one voice. Indeed, many changed their positions on Federalism during their lives.

if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government.

Where would anyone get the idea that ‘liberals’ want ‘unlimited central government?

‘Liberals’ have been at the forefront of limiting government with regard to 4th Amendment privacy and search and seizure rights, 5th and 6th Amendment due process rights, and 14th Amendment equal protection rights.

Moreover, ‘liberals’ are also at the forefront of combating state government and other local jurisdictions’ efforts to violate the rights of their citizens; all governments have the capacity to overreach and preempt civil liberties, not just the Federal government.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today?

Because the US Constitution is specifically designed to encourage and protect free-thinking, freedom of speech and the ideas that are spawned by free thinking and freedom of speech.

Liberalism is just an idea. America is still a nation that protects ideas.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.

So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?

What's wrong with us? Apparently education would be a good place to start. I'm sorry you were left behind, child - I blame boooooooosh.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...th-conservatism-america-was-born-liberal.html

if so they were liberals who wanted very limited central government unlike modern liberals who want unlimited central government. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ? There is just no other explanation. Sorry.

Here's an explanation: You have no idea what you're talking about and are basing your entire thesis on talking points spun by talking heads.

 

[editec]

The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.


So why is Liberalism so tolerated today? What is wrong with us?

The above is employing an intellectually dishonest debating technique known as BEGGING THE QUESTION.


begging the question - logical fallacies - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

 

[Sallow]

Julia Childs spied for Stalin?

If I said that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??


:

Oh..and Conservatives had very little to do with the constitution.

conservative are for limited government. That was the entire purpose of the Revolution, Declaration and Constitution. Why not go to Cuba if you are afraid of freedom?

You said "Liberals" spied for Stalin.

Julia Childs, well known television chef and a liberal democrat.

Guess what..she was a spy too.

Blows your stupidity out the door..don't it?

Recalling Julia Child, Oyster-Loving Idealist - New York Times

Few of the obituaries published after Mrs. Child's death last Friday at the age of 91 mentioned that she was a passionate liberal Democrat, a friend when she lived in Cambridge, Mass., of neighbors like the economist John Kenneth Galbraith. She campaigned for years for Planned Parenthood and other causes, and she greatly admired John, Robert and Edward Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

 

[Sallow]

What restrictions?

Congress has very broad powers.

Like government can really only tax for the purpose of funding it's obligations per the constitution like the specific powers and obligations listed in section 8. In other words, if it isn't there, government can't do it.

Ah..so you support getting rid of the Air Force and various military departments. A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either. Only militias and only when needed to repulse land invasions and quell rebellion..and funding to be determined every 2 years. Only the navy is a permanent fixture. By the way it's defense..not a military capable of attack that the Constitution makes provisions for..

So all those overseas military bases..all the funding that goes to various "allies" would be "bye bye".

Along with various "R&D" projects, the CIA, NSA, and lots of other letters in the alphabet.

No conservative picked up on this one..eh?

No big surprise here.

Additionally..Madison is pretty clear about professional soldiers under federal control.

 

[editec]

Like government can really only tax for the purpose of funding it's obligations per the constitution like the specific powers and obligations listed in section 8. In other words, if it isn't there, government can't do it.

Ah..so you support getting rid of the Air Force and various military departments. A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either. Only militias and only when needed to repulse land invasions and quell rebellion..and funding to be determined every 2 years. Only the navy is a permanent fixture. By the way it's defense..not a military capable of attack that the Constitution makes provisions for..

So all those overseas military bases..all the funding that goes to various "allies" would be "bye bye".

Along with various "R&D" projects, the CIA, NSA, and lots of other letters in the alphabet.

No conservative picked up on this one..eh?

No big surprise here.

Additionally..Madison is pretty clear about professional soldiers under federal control.

Of COURSE they're going to ignore this.

These clowns pick and choose which things they like about the floundering fathers and pretend that everything else about them never happened.

FREE TRADE - the floundering fathers LOATHED the idea.

 

[Bern80]

Ah..so you support getting rid of the Air Force and various military departments. A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either. Only militias and only when needed to repulse land invasions and quell rebellion..and funding to be determined every 2 years. Only the navy is a permanent fixture. By the way it's defense..not a military capable of attack that the Constitution makes provisions for..

So all those overseas military bases..all the funding that goes to various "allies" would be "bye bye".

Along with various "R&D" projects, the CIA, NSA, and lots of other letters in the alphabet.

No conservative picked up on this one..eh?

No big surprise here.

Additionally..Madison is pretty clear about professional soldiers under federal control.

Of COURSE they're going to ignore this.

These clowns pick and choose which things they like about the floundering fathers and pretend that everything else about them never happened.

FREE TRADE - the floundering fathers LOATHED the idea.

Wasn't ignored by me. Go back and read a bit before you two get too full of yourselves.

 

[Dragon]

Regarding Madison and the Constitution, a good examination of the process by which the document was created shows it to be the work of no single man, but a compromise among many divergent interests and the work of many men. I stand by my "hundreds" statement; although there were only 55 delegates at the convention, all of them had others to whom they reported or who were influential on their thinking.

One should not take a bit of rhetoric literally. Madison is called the "father of the Constitution" not because he wrote it, but because his diplomatic initiatives at the convention probably allowed it to be adopted. He was certainly one of the delegates whose views were most influential; however, as noted above, so was Alexander Hamilton, who diverged from Madison sharply. If we are talking strictly about the extent to which a delegate's views influenced the final product, it is Hamilton, not Madison, who arguably deserves to be called "Father of the Constitution."

The plain and obvious sense of the tax and spend clause is the way I have described it, which is also the way that the courts have interpreted it. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes in the ways that the Constitution allows, and to spend the revenues so collected, to pay the debts and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. That's what it says, and in any straightforward common-sense interpretation that's what it means. Those who want it to mean something else have to twist it and make weird arguments based on punctuation or just pulled out of their backsides, as Madison did as president when vetoing an infrastructure spending bill (of course, he actually required no justification; as president he had the authority to veto the bill simply because he didn't want to spend the money, and did not require it to be unconstitutional).

This power, and also the regulation of commerce clause, are very, very broad powers of government. The other enumerated powers are more narrow and specific. But in these two we see the intent of the framers to create a government that had enough authority in potential, and was sufficiently flexible, to stand the test of time. These men knew how much things had changed over the last few centuries, and although they could not have anticipated the specific nature of the world in which we live today, they had to have known it would be radically different from their own.

The idea that the framers intended to create a small, weak, powerless government simply had no basis in reality.

 

[konradv]

And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.

As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.

The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.

If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.

The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.

It ISN'T possible. If the court says something is constitutional, it is. If a later court says it isn't, then it isn't. If you don't agree, then you don't really understand the court at all.

 

[Bern80]

As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.

The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.

If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.

The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.

It ISN'T possible. If the court says something is constitutional, it is. If a later court says it isn't, then it isn't. If you don't agree, then you don't really understand the court at all.

I understand it completely. You're argument is completely asanine. Perhaps a more extreme argument would make you see how ridiculous it is. If a court, for whatever reason, ruled that people accussed of murder were not entitled to a trial, would that be a constitutional decision?

 

[jillian]

And yet Madison, the guy who wrote it, says your wrong. You'll have to forgive me for taking his word over yours.

As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.

The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.

If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.

The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.

no. it is NOT possible for the supreme court to make an unconstitutional decision. that would be like claiming an "unconstitutional amendment" could be placed in the constitution.

the court can make a bad decision. it can make a decision one disagrees with. but it can't make an unconstitutional decision. by definition, that is not possible.

a bit of study, starting with Marbury v Madison, might be of assistance to you if you're actually interested in getting it right.

 

[midcan5]

...wanting freedom is brain dead to a liberal isn't it??

So tell us what freedom is? http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html Oh, and our first president disagrees.

"The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Quote DB :: Speeches :: George Washington :: George Washington's Farewell Address Speech

 

[Bern80]

As I noted above, Madison IS NOT "the guy who wrote it." He is one of hundreds of guys who wrote it, and his opinion is therefore not that of an author.

The matter's been decided anyway; it's the Supreme Court that gets do determine these questions and the court interprets the clause pretty much the way I just described.

If he is 'one of the authors' then his opinion is most certainly that of an author. How stupid a statement can you possibly make? He is widely considered the PRIMARY author of the document.

The supreme court? That's what you libs always love to fall back on. As if it isn't possible for a court to make an unconstitutional decison.

no. it is NOT possible for the supreme court to make an unconstitutional decision. that would be like claiming an "unconstitutional amendment" could be placed in the constitution.

the court can make a bad decision. it can make a decision one disagrees with. but it can't make an unconstitutional decision. by definition, that is not possible.

a bit of study, starting with Marbury v Madison, might be of assistance to you if you're actually interested in getting it right.

So your answer to the question in my previous post would be yes?