The U.S. Constitution's most Basic Point

[DGS49]

The "United States." Think about that concept.

Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.

When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.

The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,

• To regulate commerce with foreign countries,
• To coin money,
• To establish a system of post offices, and "post roads" (to facilitate mail delivery),
• To establish a system for patents and copyrights,
• To raise armies, navies, and to declare war.

People who pay attention to such things have concluded that there are 17 specific functions that the STATES turned over to the central government, but the exact number is not important. What is important is that the powers granted to the central government are numbered, finite, and limited. And of course, the central government was authorized to collect taxes to pay for those functions, and to make any laws that were necessary to execute the powers that had been given to the central government.

THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.

And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.

And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."

As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.

Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.

I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.

But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The "United States." Think about that concept.

Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.

When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.

The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,

• To regulate commerce with foreign countries,
• To coin money,
• To establish a system of post offices, and "post roads" (to facilitate mail delivery),
• To establish a system for patents and copyrights,
• To raise armies, navies, and to declare war.

People who pay attention to such things have concluded that there are 17 specific functions that the STATES turned over to the central government, but the exact number is not important. What is important is that the powers granted to the central government are numbered, finite, and limited. And of course, the central government was authorized to collect taxes to pay for those functions, and to make any laws that were necessary to execute the powers that had been given to the central government.

THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.

And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.

And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."

As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.

Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.

I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.

But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.

If the 10th is to be read literally, the vote of the people in a Republic decides what the Federal Government can and cannot do. Electing a Congress and a President opens the door to expand Sec. 8 to include dept's. of health, education, environmental protection and energy.

The ideological battle on this issue has become a meme for the conservatives to allow each state the to determine the civil rights of its citizens. If taken to the extreme, which I have no doubt the recent election proved is possible, slavery and every form of discrimination would exist in the conservative states, poll taxes and other impediments would exclude the many, and borders would be closed to prevent workers from fleeing such tyranny to seek the liberty and freedoms, and livable wages and working conditions We the People support and many of us enjoy.

Elections also allow the people to decide if the Federal Government is working to benefit all of The People, or the few. We will soon learn which path the new administration will follow.

The argument which so upsets the President-elect (P-e)and his supporters, that the will of the people has been superseded by the Electoral College, and the result does not reflect the will of the majority is a valid one. That argument will not go away and will become louder and more intense if the Senate consents to those nominated by the P-e begin to dismantle democracy in America.

 

[peach174]

The "United States." Think about that concept.

Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.

When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.

The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,

• To regulate commerce with foreign countries,
• To coin money,
• To establish a system of post offices, and "post roads" (to facilitate mail delivery),
• To establish a system for patents and copyrights,
• To raise armies, navies, and to declare war.

People who pay attention to such things have concluded that there are 17 specific functions that the STATES turned over to the central government, but the exact number is not important. What is important is that the powers granted to the central government are numbered, finite, and limited. And of course, the central government was authorized to collect taxes to pay for those functions, and to make any laws that were necessary to execute the powers that had been given to the central government.

THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.

And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.

And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."

As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.

Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.

I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.

But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.

If the 10th is to be read literally, the vote of the people in a Republic decides what the Federal Government can and cannot do. Electing a Congress and a President opens the door to expand Sec. 8 to include dept's. of health, education, environmental protection and energy.

The ideological battle on this issue has become a meme for the conservatives to allow each state the to determine the civil rights of its citizens. If taken to the extreme, which I have no doubt the recent election proved is possible, slavery and every form of discrimination would exist in the conservative states, poll taxes and other impediments would exclude the many, and borders would be closed to prevent workers from fleeing such tyranny to seek the liberty and freedoms, and livable wages and working conditions We the People support and many of us enjoy.

Elections also allow the people to decide if the Federal Government is working to benefit all of The People, or the few. We will soon learn which path the new administration will follow.

The argument which so upsets the President-elect (P-e)and his supporters, that the will of the people has been superseded by the Electoral College, and the result does not reflect the will of the majority is a valid one. That argument will not go away and will become louder and more intense if the Senate consents to those nominated by the P-e begin to dismantle democracy in America.

It was the Republicans who freed the slaves.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The "United States." Think about that concept.

Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.

When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.

The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,

• To regulate commerce with foreign countries,
• To coin money,
• To establish a system of post offices, and "post roads" (to facilitate mail delivery),
• To establish a system for patents and copyrights,
• To raise armies, navies, and to declare war.

People who pay attention to such things have concluded that there are 17 specific functions that the STATES turned over to the central government, but the exact number is not important. What is important is that the powers granted to the central government are numbered, finite, and limited. And of course, the central government was authorized to collect taxes to pay for those functions, and to make any laws that were necessary to execute the powers that had been given to the central government.

THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.

And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.

And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."

As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.

Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.

I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.

But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.

If the 10th is to be read literally, the vote of the people in a Republic decides what the Federal Government can and cannot do. Electing a Congress and a President opens the door to expand Sec. 8 to include dept's. of health, education, environmental protection and energy.

The ideological battle on this issue has become a meme for the conservatives to allow each state the to determine the civil rights of its citizens. If taken to the extreme, which I have no doubt the recent election proved is possible, slavery and every form of discrimination would exist in the conservative states, poll taxes and other impediments would exclude the many, and borders would be closed to prevent workers from fleeing such tyranny to seek the liberty and freedoms, and livable wages and working conditions We the People support and many of us enjoy.

Elections also allow the people to decide if the Federal Government is working to benefit all of The People, or the few. We will soon learn which path the new administration will follow.

The argument which so upsets the President-elect (P-e)and his supporters, that the will of the people has been superseded by the Electoral College, and the result does not reflect the will of the majority is a valid one. That argument will not go away and will become louder and more intense if the Senate consents to those nominated by the P-e begin to dismantle democracy in America.

It was the Republicans who freed the slaves.

Yes, the party of Lincoln, and the party of Lincoln built the Transcontinental RR & TR established national parks. The Party of Kennedy/Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, the party of Nixon passed clean water and clean air acts and the Party of Trump seems headed to repealing or watering down all of these accomplishments by men and women of good will.

 

[peach174]

The "United States." Think about that concept.

Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.

When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.

The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,

• To regulate commerce with foreign countries,
• To coin money,
• To establish a system of post offices, and "post roads" (to facilitate mail delivery),
• To establish a system for patents and copyrights,
• To raise armies, navies, and to declare war.

People who pay attention to such things have concluded that there are 17 specific functions that the STATES turned over to the central government, but the exact number is not important. What is important is that the powers granted to the central government are numbered, finite, and limited. And of course, the central government was authorized to collect taxes to pay for those functions, and to make any laws that were necessary to execute the powers that had been given to the central government.

THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.

And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.

And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."

As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.

Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.

I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.

But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.

If the 10th is to be read literally, the vote of the people in a Republic decides what the Federal Government can and cannot do. Electing a Congress and a President opens the door to expand Sec. 8 to include dept's. of health, education, environmental protection and energy.

The ideological battle on this issue has become a meme for the conservatives to allow each state the to determine the civil rights of its citizens. If taken to the extreme, which I have no doubt the recent election proved is possible, slavery and every form of discrimination would exist in the conservative states, poll taxes and other impediments would exclude the many, and borders would be closed to prevent workers from fleeing such tyranny to seek the liberty and freedoms, and livable wages and working conditions We the People support and many of us enjoy.

Elections also allow the people to decide if the Federal Government is working to benefit all of The People, or the few. We will soon learn which path the new administration will follow.

The argument which so upsets the President-elect (P-e)and his supporters, that the will of the people has been superseded by the Electoral College, and the result does not reflect the will of the majority is a valid one. That argument will not go away and will become louder and more intense if the Senate consents to those nominated by the P-e begin to dismantle democracy in America.

It was the Republicans who freed the slaves.

Yes, the party of Lincoln, and the party of Lincoln built the Transcontinental RR & TR established national parks. The Party of Kennedy/Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act, the party of Nixon passed clean water and clean air acts and the Party of Trump seems headed to repealing or watering down all of these accomplishments by men and women of good will.

It's the top 1% that built the Railroads.
It was a progressive Republican that established the National Parks.

The programs passed thought to be of good will, has kept them trapped in poverty.

 

[eflatminor]

I would argue the Constitution's most basic point is that the Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, as opposed to pretty much all previous societies in which rights were granted.

The government is not there to protect us or to keep us safe, but to keep us free.

The rest is up to you.

 

[DGS49]

wrycatcher, you have missed (intentionally?) a very salient point. The Bill of Rights originally only restrained the Federal Government, however, later court decisions - valid in my view - brought the protections of the Bill of Rights directly to the people THROUGH the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Even conservative jurists accept this point.

 

[Buck111]

 

[regent]

I would argue the Constitution's most basic point is that the Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, as opposed to pretty much all previous societies in which rights were granted.

The government is not there to protect us or to keep us safe, but to keep us free.

The rest is up to you.

What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

 

[eflatminor]

I would argue the Constitution's most basic point is that the Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, as opposed to pretty much all previous societies in which rights were granted.

The government is not there to protect us or to keep us safe, but to keep us free.

The rest is up to you.

What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Wrong document. That's the Declaration of Independence.

A crucial statement on our founding, no doubt, but NOT the law of the land.

I stand behind my comments on the basic reason behind the Constitution.

 

[regent]

I would argue the Constitution's most basic point is that the Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, as opposed to pretty much all previous societies in which rights were granted.

The government is not there to protect us or to keep us safe, but to keep us free.

The rest is up to you.

What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Wrong document. That's the Declaration of Independence.

A crucial statement on our founding, no doubt, but NOT the law of the land.

I stand behind my comments on the basic reason behind the Constitution.

"Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

 

[eflatminor]

I would argue the Constitution's most basic point is that the Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, as opposed to pretty much all previous societies in which rights were granted.

The government is not there to protect us or to keep us safe, but to keep us free.

The rest is up to you.

What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Wrong document. That's the Declaration of Independence.

A crucial statement on our founding, no doubt, but NOT the law of the land.

I stand behind my comments on the basic reason behind the Constitution.

"Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Right...and once again, the basic idea of the Constitution is that these rights, among many others exist at birth. They are not granted by anyone and therefore they cannot be taken away without due process.

 

[Buck111]

I would argue the Constitution's most basic point is that the Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, as opposed to pretty much all previous societies in which rights were granted.

The government is not there to protect us or to keep us safe, but to keep us free.

The rest is up to you.

What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Wrong document. That's the Declaration of Independence.

A crucial statement on our founding, no doubt, but NOT the law of the land.

I stand behind my comments on the basic reason behind the Constitution.

"Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Right...and once again, the basic idea of the Constitution is that these rights, among many others exist at birth. They are not granted by anyone and therefore they cannot be taken away without due process.

I find it distressing that natural rights can be taken away from people via something called "due process" simply because a CONstract, nobody living has agreed to, and written by a bunch of CON artists, says so.

 

[eflatminor]

I would argue the Constitution's most basic point is that the Federal government exists to protect the rights of the people, as opposed to pretty much all previous societies in which rights were granted.

The government is not there to protect us or to keep us safe, but to keep us free.

The rest is up to you.

What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Wrong document. That's the Declaration of Independence.

A crucial statement on our founding, no doubt, but NOT the law of the land.

I stand behind my comments on the basic reason behind the Constitution.

"Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Right...and once again, the basic idea of the Constitution is that these rights, among many others exist at birth. They are not granted by anyone and therefore they cannot be taken away without due process.

I find it distressing that natural rights can be taken away from people via something called "due process" simply because a CONstract, nobody living has agreed to, and written by a bunch of CON artists, says so.

?

What is a CONstract?

 

[there4eyeM]

The transcontinental train lines were built by having very sweet land deals with the Central Government (the people); what could be called a socialist solution for the benefit of private enterprise..

 

[Buck111]

What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Wrong document. That's the Declaration of Independence.

A crucial statement on our founding, no doubt, but NOT the law of the land.

I stand behind my comments on the basic reason behind the Constitution.

"Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Right...and once again, the basic idea of the Constitution is that these rights, among many others exist at birth. They are not granted by anyone and therefore they cannot be taken away without due process.

I find it distressing that natural rights can be taken away from people via something called "due process" simply because a CONstract, nobody living has agreed to, and written by a bunch of CON artists, says so.

?

What is a CONstract?

A con mans contract.

 

[eflatminor]

Wrong document. That's the Declaration of Independence.

A crucial statement on our founding, no doubt, but NOT the law of the land.

I stand behind my comments on the basic reason behind the Constitution.

"Nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Right...and once again, the basic idea of the Constitution is that these rights, among many others exist at birth. They are not granted by anyone and therefore they cannot be taken away without due process.

I find it distressing that natural rights can be taken away from people via something called "due process" simply because a CONstract, nobody living has agreed to, and written by a bunch of CON artists, says so.

?

What is a CONstract?

A con mans contract.

Again, ?

 

[Moonglow]

The "United States." Think about that concept.

Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.

When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.

The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,

• To regulate commerce with foreign countries,
• To coin money,
• To establish a system of post offices, and "post roads" (to facilitate mail delivery),
• To establish a system for patents and copyrights,
• To raise armies, navies, and to declare war.

People who pay attention to such things have concluded that there are 17 specific functions that the STATES turned over to the central government, but the exact number is not important. What is important is that the powers granted to the central government are numbered, finite, and limited. And of course, the central government was authorized to collect taxes to pay for those functions, and to make any laws that were necessary to execute the powers that had been given to the central government.

THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.

And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.

And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."

As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.

Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.

I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.

But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.

If the 10th is to be read literally, the vote of the people in a Republic decides what the Federal Government can and cannot do. Electing a Congress and a President opens the door to expand Sec. 8 to include dept's. of health, education, environmental protection and energy.

The ideological battle on this issue has become a meme for the conservatives to allow each state the to determine the civil rights of its citizens. If taken to the extreme, which I have no doubt the recent election proved is possible, slavery and every form of discrimination would exist in the conservative states, poll taxes and other impediments would exclude the many, and borders would be closed to prevent workers from fleeing such tyranny to seek the liberty and freedoms, and livable wages and working conditions We the People support and many of us enjoy.

Elections also allow the people to decide if the Federal Government is working to benefit all of The People, or the few. We will soon learn which path the new administration will follow.

The argument which so upsets the President-elect (P-e)and his supporters, that the will of the people has been superseded by the Electoral College, and the result does not reflect the will of the majority is a valid one. That argument will not go away and will become louder and more intense if the Senate consents to those nominated by the P-e begin to dismantle democracy in America.

It was the Republicans who freed the slaves.

Andrew Johnson wasn't a republican..

 

[Wry Catcher]

The "United States." Think about that concept.

Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.

When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.

The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,

• To regulate commerce with foreign countries,
• To coin money,
• To establish a system of post offices, and "post roads" (to facilitate mail delivery),
• To establish a system for patents and copyrights,
• To raise armies, navies, and to declare war.

People who pay attention to such things have concluded that there are 17 specific functions that the STATES turned over to the central government, but the exact number is not important. What is important is that the powers granted to the central government are numbered, finite, and limited. And of course, the central government was authorized to collect taxes to pay for those functions, and to make any laws that were necessary to execute the powers that had been given to the central government.

THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.

And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.

And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."

As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.

Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.

I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.

But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.

If the 10th is to be read literally, the vote of the people in a Republic decides what the Federal Government can and cannot do. Electing a Congress and a President opens the door to expand Sec. 8 to include dept's. of health, education, environmental protection and energy.

The ideological battle on this issue has become a meme for the conservatives to allow each state the to determine the civil rights of its citizens. If taken to the extreme, which I have no doubt the recent election proved is possible, slavery and every form of discrimination would exist in the conservative states, poll taxes and other impediments would exclude the many, and borders would be closed to prevent workers from fleeing such tyranny to seek the liberty and freedoms, and livable wages and working conditions We the People support and many of us enjoy.

Elections also allow the people to decide if the Federal Government is working to benefit all of The People, or the few. We will soon learn which path the new administration will follow.

The argument which so upsets the President-elect (P-e)and his supporters, that the will of the people has been superseded by the Electoral College, and the result does not reflect the will of the majority is a valid one. That argument will not go away and will become louder and more intense if the Senate consents to those nominated by the P-e begin to dismantle democracy in America.

It was the Republicans who freed the slaves.

It was the Party of Lincoln. That party went to the dark side, though fools and those who lie claim differently. Which are you? A fool, or a liar?

 

[danielpalos]

The "United States." Think about that concept.

Unlike what most Americans think, a "State" is not a sub-division of a country. A State IS a country. This is why we speak of a "two-state solution" in the Holy Land - two separate, independent COUNTRIES.

When the colonies decided to consolidate, they still considered themselves separate STATES - that is, countries. Had they wanted to simply consolidate into one country, they would have chosen a new name like England or France or Norway. No, they wanted to retain their independent sovereignty, while turning over well-defined portions of that sovereignty to a central government.

The portions turned over are listed in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, and they are quite logical. These are governmental functions that make sense to be done on a consolidated basis. For example,

• To regulate commerce with foreign countries,
• To coin money,
• To establish a system of post offices, and "post roads" (to facilitate mail delivery),
• To establish a system for patents and copyrights,
• To raise armies, navies, and to declare war.

People who pay attention to such things have concluded that there are 17 specific functions that the STATES turned over to the central government, but the exact number is not important. What is important is that the powers granted to the central government are numbered, finite, and limited. And of course, the central government was authorized to collect taxes to pay for those functions, and to make any laws that were necessary to execute the powers that had been given to the central government.

THEN, they made sure that the central government did not expand its mission, by passing the Tenth Amendment, which states simply that the powers granted in the Constitution to the central government were exclusive, and EVERYTHING ELSE was reserved to the States or to the people.

And so, for example, the States retain exclusive jurisdiction over real estate laws, commercial laws, criminal laws (other than for crimes involving the areas assigned to the central government), family law, and so forth.

And this basic framework REMAINS "the law of the land."

As an example of Americans' serious ignorance about this basic framework, consider the relatively recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act, centering on the penalty that was assessed against those who did not buy health insurance. CLEARLY, the central government has no power to compel people to get health insurance. It is not among the powers granted to the federal government. So if this was actually a fine or penalty, it was unconstitutional.

But the Supreme Court has an implicit obligation to TRY to interpret the actions of Congress in a way that makes everything Constitutional, if possible. So they interpreted the penalty as a form of TAX, which Congress is [arguably] permitted to impose. They did this even though the Solicitor General, speaking for the Administration, specifically said that it was NOT a tax. So ACA survived to live another day.

Now with this basic structure for the federal government, one wonders how in the world there can exist a Federal Department called the "Department of Education." Under the Tenth Amendment, the central government has NO POWER to do anything in connection with education. It is ENTIRELY the province of the States and the private sector. They might as well have a Department of Real Estate Transfers. It is an absurdity.

I'm not intentionally picking on the Department of Education; it is merely an example of a "cornucopia" of such agencies and departments in Washington, the mere existence of which is clearly unconstitutional.

But MOST IMPORTANT in this discussion is the following point: Saying that something is "Unconstitutional" is NOT THE SAME as saying that it is bad or worthless or of no value. It may be a wonderful program, but unless it is authorized by the Constitution then it ought not to exist. And if the People decide that it should exist, then a Constitutional Amendment is required, to permit it.

Nothing but a wall of text. Why not end our drug war, first.