The Foundation of the Constitution

[DGS49]

The first thing that one must understand when trying to make sense of the Constitution is the meaning of the word, "State." A State is a synonym for a COUNTRY. For example, we speak often of a "two-state solution" in Palestine, meaning two separate countries, intertwined.

The United States was a consolidation of thirteen former colonies which each thought of themselves (after the Declaration) as separate states. Each had an autonomous government, laws, constitution, and so on.

The Constitution was the "agreement" whereby those separate, small COUNTRIES decided to consolidate, but only to the extent that consolidation was in their individual best interests. Beyond that, they demanded to be treated a separate STATES.

Consider the kinds of things for which consolidation would have been beneficial: Currency, common defense, patents and copyrights, treaties with other nations, INTER-STATE commerce, and so on. As you are considering this concept, look to Section 8 of Article I (the powers of Congress). It starts with a general statement that Congress shall have the power to raise money, and to pay the debts of the consolidated government, then it goes on to specifics. The section lists 17 or so separate "powers" granted to Congress (i.e., to the consolidated, central government), to wit, the power to borrow money on the credit of the consolidated government, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the power to provide laws for naturalization and bankruptcy, and so on.

The other side of this coin, so to speak, is the Tenth Amendment, which says, in effect that the powers not specifically granted to the consolidated government are reserved to the individual States, or to the people.

One might observe the wording in Article I, that "Congress shall have power [to provide for the] general welfare of the United States..." and infer from those words that the limitations are moot; if Congress can provide for the "general welfare," then it can do whatever it deems beneficial, regardless of whether what it intends to do is covered by the 17 (or so) specifically-delegated powers. The Courts long ago cast this reading aside, concluding that if the Founders had intended such broad powers, they would not have listed the specifically designated powers, and they would certainly not have included the Tenth Amendment.

So there you have it: we are a collection of individual states, which have delegated certain limited powers to the central government, retaining all other powers to ourselves. Hence, real estate law, family law, common criminal law, and commercial law are essentially all retained by the States.

THIS IS WHY, when the Supreme Court is considering whether, for example, Congress can demand, under penalty of law, that every citizen buy health insurance, it finds that Congress cannot do so. Alternatively, said the court, Congress can impose a TAX on those who decline to enroll, and that's just dandy. But it cannot overtly require people to enroll. Clearly, the Court wants to defer to the wishes of Congress, and will twist facts and logic to the extreme in order to allow Congress to have its way (The congressional counsel arguing the case before the Court told them that this was NOT A TAX!)

Against this clear and truly undeniable background, it is nauseating and almost infuriating to hear Members of Congress screeching that, for example, "The Republican Plan doesn't guarantee insurance for 'families with children'" [i.e. "Welfare Queens"], knowing that Congress HAS NO POWER to provide taxpayer funding for health insurance for anybody except employees of government and retirees.

Think back to the days of High School Civics. The Federal Government is a government of limited powers, and the States have plenary powers. This is nothing new.

 

[Fenton Lum]

What we all need to understand about this so called constitution and this so called democratic society is that nothing in it ever stood in the way of slavery, genocide, or the internment of anyone the substantial people deemed to be in the way.

 

[midcan5]

A fascinating read related to topic. 'White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America' by Nancy Isenberg

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first thing that one must understand when trying to make sense of the Constitution is the meaning of the word, "State." A State is a synonym for a COUNTRY. For example, we speak often of a "two-state solution" in Palestine, meaning two separate countries, intertwined.

The United States was a consolidation of thirteen former colonies which each thought of themselves (after the Declaration) as separate states. Each had an autonomous government, laws, constitution, and so on.

The Constitution was the "agreement" whereby those separate, small COUNTRIES decided to consolidate, but only to the extent that consolidation was in their individual best interests. Beyond that, they demanded to be treated a separate STATES.

Consider the kinds of things for which consolidation would have been beneficial: Currency, common defense, patents and copyrights, treaties with other nations, INTER-STATE commerce, and so on. As you are considering this concept, look to Section 8 of Article I (the powers of Congress). It starts with a general statement that Congress shall have the power to raise money, and to pay the debts of the consolidated government, then it goes on to specifics. The section lists 17 or so separate "powers" granted to Congress (i.e., to the consolidated, central government), to wit, the power to borrow money on the credit of the consolidated government, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the power to provide laws for naturalization and bankruptcy, and so on.

The other side of this coin, so to speak, is the Tenth Amendment, which says, in effect that the powers not specifically granted to the consolidated government are reserved to the individual States, or to the people.

One might observe the wording in Article I, that "Congress shall have power [to provide for the] general welfare of the United States..." and infer from those words that the limitations are moot; if Congress can provide for the "general welfare," then it can do whatever it deems beneficial, regardless of whether what it intends to do is covered by the 17 (or so) specifically-delegated powers. The Courts long ago cast this reading aside, concluding that if the Founders had intended such broad powers, they would not have listed the specifically designated powers, and they would certainly not have included the Tenth Amendment.

So there you have it: we are a collection of individual states, which have delegated certain limited powers to the central government, retaining all other powers to ourselves. Hence, real estate law, family law, common criminal law, and commercial law are essentially all retained by the States.

THIS IS WHY, when the Supreme Court is considering whether, for example, Congress can demand, under penalty of law, that every citizen buy health insurance, it finds that Congress cannot do so. Alternatively, said the court, Congress can impose a TAX on those who decline to enroll, and that's just dandy. But it cannot overtly require people to enroll. Clearly, the Court wants to defer to the wishes of Congress, and will twist facts and logic to the extreme in order to allow Congress to have its way (The congressional counsel arguing the case before the Court told them that this was NOT A TAX!)

Against this clear and truly undeniable background, it is nauseating and almost infuriating to hear Members of Congress screeching that, for example, "The Republican Plan doesn't guarantee insurance for 'families with children'" [i.e. "Welfare Queens"], knowing that Congress HAS NO POWER to provide taxpayer funding for health insurance for anybody except employees of government and retirees.

Think back to the days of High School Civics. The Federal Government is a government of limited powers, and the States have plenary powers. This is nothing new.

"From 1774 to 1789, the Continental Congress served as the government of the 13 American colonies and later the United States. The First Continental Congress, which was comprised of delegates from the colonies, met in 1774 in reaction to the Coercive Acts, a series of measures imposed by the British government on the colonies in response to their resistance to new taxes. In 1775, the Second Continental Congress convened after the American Revolutionary War (1775-83) had already begun. In 1776, it took the momentous step of declaring America’s independence from Britain. Five years later, the Congress ratified the first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation, under which the country would be governed until 1789, when it was replaced by the current U.S. Constitution."
The Continental Congress - American Revolution - HISTORY.com

They were colonies, Delaware became the first State on Dec. 7, 1787.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Federal Government is a government of limited powers, and the States have plenary powers.

Exactly where are those 'plenary powers' of the several States delineated in the Constitution? For instance, the National government has the plenary power over interstate commerce noted in Article I, § 8, Cls 3. That is one of the direct powers, or plenary, vested solely and exclusively in the federal and that power was ceded by the several States when they joined the Union. Further, when the States signed on to the Union they acknowledged the supremacy of the National government over the States in Article IV, Cls 2 having willingly yielded a portion of their supreme sovereign power within their borders.

Please don't dance to that worn Amendment X argument. The several States do have some plenary powers, but you'll not find one of them inscribed in the amendment, and I can conjure up none given in the Constitution right now which the States could exercise plenary power.

The antifederalists lost their fight with the federalists in 1788 with the ratification of the Constitution. The entire purpose of the Constitutional Convention back then was to shed those unworkable Articles of Confederation and "Create a more perfect Union". To return to the antifederalist paradigm such as others like yourself keep preaching with all of this stupid, stupid States Rights chant would be turning the clock back 228 years in the yearning for a status quo long dead and buried.

<EDIT>...forgot to add this;
Plenary power
Complete power over a particular area with no limitations. This term is often used to describe the Commerce Power of Congress. Under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) Congress is granted full power over interstate commerce. The Court has found that states are not able to pass laws affecting interstate commerce without the permission of Congress.
~~ Plenary power ~~

 

[Wolfstrike]

What we all need to understand about this so called constitution and this so called democratic society is that nothing in it ever stood in the way of slavery, genocide, or the internment of anyone the substantial people deemed to be in the way.

do you're saying we should hand over power to people who offer you no guarantees of liberty because you think you found flaws with the people who did

 

[DGS49]

Thoughtcrime, the plenary powers of the states do not have to be delineated in the FEDERAL constitution; they are on the order of, "Everything Else." As I mentioned above, real estate law, commercial law (intrastate), family law, and most criminal law, are governed almost exclusively by the respective states. It is ONLY in the areas outlined in Article I Section 8 where the Feds take precedence.

Examples of this principle are too numerous to count, but consider the interstate highway system. There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to spend money on a highway system (other than "post [office] roads"), so the initial enabling act is the "National Defense..." highway system, on the pretense that the PURPOSE of the interstate highway system was primarily to facilitate the movement of troops and military supplies around the country in case of war. If it were just developed and built to facilitate private transport it would have been unconstitutional.

What contemporary Americans always seem to forget is that, saying some initiative is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it's a bad idea. Indeed, many possibly good ideas are Unconstitutional...e.g., Socialized Medicine. And to carry on as though Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants to do, if enough of them think that it's a good idea, is antithetical to our Constitutional system. A major change like Socialized Medicine MUST be authorized by a Constitutional amendment, because it is too dramatic to be introduced by a simple majority of Congress that can easily be voted out of office in a couple of months - and then we're stuck with it.

Examples abound.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Thoughtcrime, the plenary powers of the states do not have to be delineated in the FEDERAL constitution; they are on the order of, "Everything Else." As I mentioned above, real estate law, commercial law (intrastate), family law, and most criminal law, are governed almost exclusively by the respective states. It is ONLY in the areas outlined in Article I Section 8 where the Feds take precedence.

Examples of this principle are too numerous to count, but consider the interstate highway system. There is nothing in the Constitution that empowers Congress to spend money on a highway system (other than "post [office] roads"), so the initial enabling act is the "National Defense..." highway system, on the pretense that the PURPOSE of the interstate highway system was primarily to facilitate the movement of troops and military supplies around the country in case of war. If it were just developed and built to facilitate private transport it would have been unconstitutional.

What contemporary Americans always seem to forget is that, saying some initiative is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it's a bad idea. Indeed, many possibly good ideas are Unconstitutional...e.g., Socialized Medicine. And to carry on as though Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants to do, if enough of them think that it's a good idea, is antithetical to our Constitutional system. A major change like Socialized Medicine MUST be authorized by a Constitutional amendment, because it is too dramatic to be introduced by a simple majority of Congress that can easily be voted out of office in a couple of months - and then we're stuck with it.

Examples abound.

The Federal Government is a government of limited powers, and the States have plenary powers.

Examine your statement directly above. I acknowledged that both the National and the State governments have plenary powers, but made the distinction that those powers sure as Hell do not overlap. They couldn't possibly, could they given the LEGAL definition of plenary powers! Your statement cited above is faulty and misleading in the manner in which you dropped it as the concluding statement of your OP! That was the main point of my response.

Thoughtcrime, the plenary powers of the states do not have to be delineated in the FEDERAL constitution; they are on the order of, "Everything Else."

Did I say they were or had to be? Try to stay on point sans redirecting comments, please. Isn't the phrase "Everything Else" just a little bit nebulous?

As I mentioned above, real estate law, commercial law (intrastate), family law, and most criminal law, are governed almost exclusively by the respective states.

Any of those powers mentioned above which are not the EXCLUSIVE POWERS of any of the several States are then NOT PLENARY POWERS, are they! "Almost Exclusively" powers are not plenary powers, and that was my bloody point!

It is ONLY in the areas outlined in Article I Section 8 where the Feds take precedence.

I'm not even going to try to parse your meaning of the object "precedence" vis-à-vis the original subject of the foolishly alleged overwhelming plenary powers of the several States.

Your last two paragraphs are not worth the time it would take to respond, but again I'll leave you with this to ponder for your edification;

The antifederalists lost their fight with the federalists in 1788 with the ratification of the Constitution. The entire purpose of the Constitutional Convention back then was to shed those unworkable Articles of Confederation and "Create a more perfect Union". To return to the antifederalist paradigm such as others like yourself keep preaching with all of this stupid, stupid States Rights chant would be turning the clock back 228 years in the yearning for a status quo long dead and buried.

 

[regent]

Or as Justice Hughes said: The Constitution is what the court say it is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first thing that one must understand when trying to make sense of the Constitution is the meaning of the word, "State." A State is a synonym for a COUNTRY. For example, we speak often of a "two-state solution" in Palestine, meaning two separate countries, intertwined.

The United States was a consolidation of thirteen former colonies which each thought of themselves (after the Declaration) as separate states. Each had an autonomous government, laws, constitution, and so on.

The Constitution was the "agreement" whereby those separate, small COUNTRIES decided to consolidate, but only to the extent that consolidation was in their individual best interests. Beyond that, they demanded to be treated a separate STATES.

Consider the kinds of things for which consolidation would have been beneficial: Currency, common defense, patents and copyrights, treaties with other nations, INTER-STATE commerce, and so on. As you are considering this concept, look to Section 8 of Article I (the powers of Congress). It starts with a general statement that Congress shall have the power to raise money, and to pay the debts of the consolidated government, then it goes on to specifics. The section lists 17 or so separate "powers" granted to Congress (i.e., to the consolidated, central government), to wit, the power to borrow money on the credit of the consolidated government, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the power to provide laws for naturalization and bankruptcy, and so on.

The other side of this coin, so to speak, is the Tenth Amendment, which says, in effect that the powers not specifically granted to the consolidated government are reserved to the individual States, or to the people.

One might observe the wording in Article I, that "Congress shall have power [to provide for the] general welfare of the United States..." and infer from those words that the limitations are moot; if Congress can provide for the "general welfare," then it can do whatever it deems beneficial, regardless of whether what it intends to do is covered by the 17 (or so) specifically-delegated powers. The Courts long ago cast this reading aside, concluding that if the Founders had intended such broad powers, they would not have listed the specifically designated powers, and they would certainly not have included the Tenth Amendment.

So there you have it: we are a collection of individual states, which have delegated certain limited powers to the central government, retaining all other powers to ourselves. Hence, real estate law, family law, common criminal law, and commercial law are essentially all retained by the States.

THIS IS WHY, when the Supreme Court is considering whether, for example, Congress can demand, under penalty of law, that every citizen buy health insurance, it finds that Congress cannot do so. Alternatively, said the court, Congress can impose a TAX on those who decline to enroll, and that's just dandy. But it cannot overtly require people to enroll. Clearly, the Court wants to defer to the wishes of Congress, and will twist facts and logic to the extreme in order to allow Congress to have its way (The congressional counsel arguing the case before the Court told them that this was NOT A TAX!)

Against this clear and truly undeniable background, it is nauseating and almost infuriating to hear Members of Congress screeching that, for example, "The Republican Plan doesn't guarantee insurance for 'families with children'" [i.e. "Welfare Queens"], knowing that Congress HAS NO POWER to provide taxpayer funding for health insurance for anybody except employees of government and retirees.

Think back to the days of High School Civics. The Federal Government is a government of limited powers, and the States have plenary powers. This is nothing new.

Your premise on the general welfare is flawed by your own argument. Take a second and consider it was the court which decided what you offered as limits on the Federal Government, and yet no where in Article III is this power provided to the Supreme Court.

 

[there4eyeM]

Or as Justice Hughes said: The Constitution is what the court say it is.

...at the time/in the milieu in which the court says what it says, because language is a living thing. That is just how languages function.

 

[regent]

I would say the foundation of the Constitution is the "Age of Enlightenment." That period, over time, caused numerous changes in man's thinking about governments, people, liberty, and so forth. Out of that age also came America and our Constitution.

 

[there4eyeM]

The evolution of morals, ideas and thought/language is ineluctable.

 

[DGS49]

The power of the USSC to "interpret" the Constitution and to determine whether any given law (or the enforcement of it in a particular case) is "Constitutional," is NOT contained in the Constitution itself, but rather it is announced in Marbury v. Madison. The logic is something on the order of, "It must be, therefore it is."

But as we have seen, there have been generations of Supreme Court justices - appointed by like-minded Presidents - who took it upon themselves to expand on the Constitution, change it, void certain parts of it, and even to create new "Constitutional" rights, despite the fact that they have no Constitutional power to do so. The most egregious example being the totally made-up "Right of Privacy," which is the foundation of the right to use birth control, to get an abortion, to bugger your neighbor, and ultimately to "marry" someone of your same gender. In all of these cases, the Court voided validly-promulgated, entirely constitutional legislation in the various states, based on a non-existent "Constitutional right" made up by a prior constitution of the Court.

Leftists are desperately hopeful that future constitutions of the USSC will honor "stare decisis" more than the Constitution itself, as Trump's appointees are asked to determine whether some of these newfound "rights" and principles can withstand future Constitutional scrutiny. If only some of those old bastards would die or retire...