The Constitution was designed to make liberalism illegal.

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Modern liberals want the same thing that liberals of 250 years ago wanted - we just have to hang our hats with the social democrats because the republicans are too bull-headed about government dictating what people can and can't do in the privacy of their own bedrooms and freedom is a central tenant of liberal thinking.

That isn't true Joe. Both sides are equaly guilty of curbing people's freedom. Republican's have things they don't want people to be able to do and so do Democrats.

I agree. The republicans and democrats both have a long history of meddling in personal lives. The point I was trying to make is that liberals are forced to call themselves democrat or independent because of the republican stance on social issues and damn few democrats are actually liberals.

 

[rdean]

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

Liberals wrote the constitution.

 

[daws101]

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

Liberals wrote the constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

The US Constitution was written by Liberals

Our founding fathers were liberals. The question is.......why do we tolerate Conservatives?

Because the Constitution allows you that freedom

 

[daws101]

The US Constitution was written by Liberals

Our founding fathers were liberals. The question is.......why do we tolerate Conservatives?

Because the Constitution allows you that freedom

and because the native americans failed to kill all the Puritans....

 

[M14 Shooter]

that's really funny..... you think the constitution was intended to make half the country illegal?

i'm not even going to bother telling you how braindead that is.

That's good, as you'd probably screw it up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.

In terms of classical liberalsim, yes.
Classical Liberalism amd Modern American Liberalism are almost completely unrelated.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well except for things like social security, medicare, most of our entitlement programs, federally funded schools, a dispraportionate tax code.....other than things like that, yeah, nothing at all.

None of those programs outlaw liberalism.

Or, if you mean that the enumerated powers don't allow those programs, you're mistaken, with the exception of the income tax which required a constitutional amendment.

"Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

This power alone covers everything you listed, again with the exception of the income tax which required the 16th amendment.

False.
The power to spend money does not convey the power to create tjhe legislation necessary to appropriate that money. If your argument were sound, there'd be only two clauses in the entire article - the first and the last.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Having the power to collect taxes does not give the government the power to use said tax revenue to do whatever they feel like.

Sure it does.

Indeded not.
The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A strict reading of the Constitution does not provide for a professional standing army under federal control either.

Absolutely false. The Constitution clearly priovides for the power to create a standing army and places that army under FULL federal control.

 

[Katzndogz]

Judging the liberals of today, Americans are so worthless, they can't be governed by the Constitution any longer. John Adams knew that when he said that the Consitution could only govern a moral and relligious people As Americans get more immoral and less religious, the Constitution is most likely inadquate to govern us any longer.

 

[daws101]

Judging the liberals of today, Americans are so worthless, they can't be governed by the Constitution any longer. John Adams knew that when he said that the Consitution could only govern a moral and relligious people As Americans get more immoral and less religious, the Constitution is most likely inadquate to govern us any longer.

bullshit, Americans are no more immoral or less religious then they were in the 18th century it only seems that way due to communication technology.

 

[Dragon]

The power to spend money does not convey the power to create tjhe legislation necessary to appropriate that money. If your argument were sound, there'd be only two clauses in the entire article - the first and the last.

If creating the legislation is necessary to spend money, then yes, the power to spend money DOES convey the power to create the legislation. However, let's be clear. The first clause of I.8 does not convey any other power than to tax and spend. It does not allow Congress to prescribe any criminal penalties for any crimes, other than punishment for tax evasion. It does not allow Congress to regulate any behavior on the part of business, individuals, or anything else, except as necessary to lay and collect taxes.

I pointed this out to someone on another thread, who wanted to say that the "general welfare" clause empowered Congress to create the EPA. It did not, because the EPA makes regulations regarding pollution emissions and prescribes penalties for violating those regulations, and this cannot be encompassed by taxing and spending. So there's a concrete example for you. I.8(1) is NOT a universal-government provision. But it IS a universal tax-and-spend provision.

Many people fail to understand this, in one direction or another.

The other very broad enumerated power is of course the regulation of commerce clause (which is the real authority behind the EPA). Just about everything that conservatives object to in government activity over the past few decades, and just about everything they're inclined to howl "unconstitutional" about, is authorized by either that or the tax and spend clause. But the language is there. If you don't like it, complain to the Founding Fathers.

The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.

No, it doesn't, because raising an army implies more than just taxing and spending. Congress must also be authorized to make laws pertinent to the creation of the army, such as authorizing codes of military justice, conscription, specifying arms and uniforms, and so on, which go beyond merely raising money and spending it. All of those non-monetary functions to creating a military force are authorized by those appropriate enumerated powers.

 

[rightwinger]

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

The United States Constitution is one of the most liberal documents in history.

In terms of classical liberalsim, yes.
Classical Liberalism amd Modern American Liberalism are almost completely unrelated.

There is no such thing as classical liberalism. Each era has it's own challenges. Liberals of each era develop new concepts to deal with those challenges. What doesn't change is conservatives trying to block those initiatives

 

[rightwinger]

Judging the liberals of today, Americans are so worthless, they can't be governed by the Constitution any longer. John Adams knew that when he said that the Consitution could only govern a moral and relligious people As Americans get more immoral and less religious, the Constitution is most likely inadquate to govern us any longer.

bullshit, Americans are no more immoral or less religious then they were in the 18th century it only seems that way due to communication technology.

Americans are much more moral than they were in Adams time. You can start with slavery and move on to native American rights, womens rights, gay rights

The individual has many more rights than they did in Adams day

And you can thank liberals

 

[Photonic]

Indeded not.
The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.

Absolutely false. The Constitution clearly priovides for the power to create a standing army and places that army under FULL federal control.

So which is it, Sir?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The power to spend money does not convey the power to create tjhe legislation necessary to appropriate that money. If your argument were sound, there'd be only two clauses in the entire article - the first and the last.

If creating the legislation is necessary to spend money, then yes, the power to spend money DOES convey the power to create the legislation.

No... the power to spend is the power to spend. The power to create legislation/programs that appropriates that spending is not the same, nor included inthe power to spend.

However, let's be clear. The first clause of I.8 does not convey any other power than to tax and spend.

Correct - it does not give the power to create the legislation necessary to create the programs that allow for that spending.

The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.

No, it doesn't, because raising an army implies more than just taxing and spending.

So does the creation and implementation of Medicare and Social Security.
Your point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Indeded not.
The fact that Congress could not raise an army or a navy unless specificslly given the power to do so negates your argument, in toto.

Absolutely false. The Constitution clearly priovides for the power to create a standing army and places that army under FULL federal control.

So which is it, Sir?

These statements do not contradict one another, so the obvious answer is:
Both.

 

[Dragon]

No... the power to spend is the power to spend. The power to create legislation/programs that appropriates that spending is not the same, nor included inthe power to spend.

That makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that Congress has the power to spend, but does not have the power to pass any laws or acts which spend money.

So does the creation and implementation of Medicare and Social Security.

No. There is nothing to Medicare or Social Security that does not involve either taxing or spending. Social Security lays and collects taxes (payroll tax), and it spends money so collected (sends checks for benefits). There is nothing else that this program does.

 

[AVG-JOE]

1. The constitution was designed to be changed.

This is true. Also, I believe there are quite a few conservatives out there who would like a balanced budget amendment or a term limit amendment or a right to life amendment or all three.

2. Conservatives ignore it too...every war post-WW2 has been unconstitutional-yes this includes ones started by Republicans.

This is NOT true. The Constitutional granting to Congress the power to "declare war," does not require that Congressional authorization for military action include the words "declare war" or "declaration of war." It only requires that it exist. The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was a declaration of war. The Congressional authorization for military action in Afghanistan, and the later one in Iraq, were declarations of war.

3. Both political parties choose to ignore it when it benefits their needs. Whether it's the 2nd amendment, or the 4th.

This is true but irrelevant. If we are talking about liberalism or conservatism, that does not mean we are talking about the Democratic or Republican parties. The Democrats, for the most part, are NOT liberals.

If we are ever to be free of the corporate plutocracy under which we suffer today, we MUST stop regarding the Democrats and Republicans as the left and right bookends of legitimate political positions.