Confederacy... will it return?

[elvis]

Actually, kevin can't explain anything about the constitution. However, FISA SHOULD have been found to be unconstitutional because it allows warrantless wiretaps in violation of the fourth amendment.

Which part of the constitution does it violate?

i thought i answered that. do you want something more specific than fourth amendment?

fourth amendment makes the most sense: search and seizure. I guess the founding fathers should have included telephones.

 

[jan]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government should bail out companies, and how does the Constitution say they should decide on who gets and who doesn't get a bailout?

Yes, it's still unconstitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say the government "can't" bail out a company?

The "general welfare clause" gives no power to the federal government.

You'll have to prove that one to me Kev!

Well, let's put it this way...they got away with it this time...there wil be more. Just wait and see.

There already is more! Nissan has applied for federal funds too. And honestly, that bothers me more than a U.S. company going to the government.

 

[xotoxi]

"Confederacy... will it return? "

No.

Next.

Ok X. Let's not start acting like Chris.

Just answering a simple question with a simple answer.

Besides, I'm funnier than Chris.

 

[jillian]

fourth amendment makes the most sense: search and seizure. I guess the founding fathers should have included telephones.

they didn't need to include it. that's the beauty of the constitution. caselaw has determined that a warrant is required except under certain very limited exceptions.

And the federal wiretap law generally requires that at least one party to a conversation know that it's being recorded.

FISA originally pushed the limits by allowing nunc pro tunc warrants within a certain number of hours after surveillance commenced... then under the last admin even the bare requirement of a nunc pro tunc warrant was dispensed with.

I've never understood why the law was renewed when the dems had the chance to kill it.

 

[elvis]

"Confederacy... will it return? "

No.

Next.

Ok X. Let's not start acting like Chris.

Just answering a simple question with a simple answer.

Besides, I'm funnier than Chris.

A funeral is funnier than Chris.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the government should bail out companies, and how does the Constitution say they should decide on who gets and who doesn't get a bailout?

Yes, it's still unconstitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say the government "can't" bail out a company?

The "general welfare clause" gives no power to the federal government.

You'll have to prove that one to me Kev!

Well, let's put it this way...they got away with it this time...there wil be more. Just wait and see.

There already is more! Nissan has applied for federal funds too. And honestly, that bothers me more than a U.S. company going to the government.

It doesn't specifically say the government can't bail out a company. However, the Constitution explicitly lists the powers that the government has, not the powers it doesn't have. Any powers not listed in the Constitution the federal government doesn't have.

What is there to prove? The Constitution lists the powers of the federal government, the general welfare clause isn't explicit whatsoever. Also, the founders never intended for the Constitution to give the federal government limitless power, which is what they use the "general welfare clause" for.

 

[Citizen]

"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." - James Madison

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." - James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 25, 1788 - considered the 'father of the Constitution'

 

[jan]

I've never understood why the law was renewed when the dems had the chance to kill it.

Apparently power is very difficult to give up once you have it.

 

[elvis]

fourth amendment makes the most sense: search and seizure. I guess the founding fathers should have included telephones.

they didn't need to include it. that's the beauty of the constitution. caselaw has determined that a warrant is required except under certain very limited exceptions.

And the federal wiretap law generally requires that at least one party to a conversation know that it's being recorded.

FISA originally pushed the limits by allowing nunc pro tunc warrants within a certain number of hours after surveillance commenced... then under the last admin even the bare requirement of a nunc pro tunc warrant was dispensed with.

I've never understood why the law was renewed when the dems had the chance to kill it.

Because there's not much difference, when we get right down to it, between the two parties on that issue.

 

[jillian]

ah...once again professing to be a constitutional expert. cute....

the states ARE subordinate to the Federal government. That is why the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

I'm not qute sure why this is so difficult for you.

I'm not sure what your problem is with me, but it's pretty clear you have one.

At any rate, the states are not subordinates to the federal government. They are equal players in the Constitutional compact. The federal government has its jurisdiction, and the states have theirs.

If anyone would take the time to read it, the Constitution spells out the powers granted the federal government, the powers forbidden the federal government, the powers forbidden the states, and last but not least, clearly states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Actually, the reasons the Articles of Confederation were replaced by our Constitution were many, and included the following:

The legislative functions were vested in a Congress of one House, consisting of from two to seven members from each state, but each state had but one vote.

The executive functions were also left in the hands of Congress, but a large body cannot properly exercise executive decisions.

Each state regulated its own commerce as it saw fit, and imposed its own custom duties, not only upon goods imported from foreign countries but also upon importation's from neighboring states.

To amend the Articles the unanimous consent of the state legislatures was necessary, and this was a practical impossibility.

There were contentions over the western lands.

Sound money had practically disappeared from circulation, and the debtor class in many sections was in open revolt.

States legislated against each other.

Many questions with foreign nations had been left unsettled.

There are additional reasons, but these are some of the main ones.

The Articles of Confederation were replaced because a weak central government and strong state governments was doomed to failure.

And the reasons don't so much matter as the effect... which is that the role of the states was reduced to make us one cohesive (to the extent possible) nation.

and kevin...it's not that i have a personal problem with you. i'm sure you're a good person.

but i wouldn't try to pull your teeth because i read a book on it.

 

[jillian]

I've never understood why the law was renewed when the dems had the chance to kill it.

Apparently power is very difficult to give up once you have it.

very true... i also think they were wimps and were afraid it would be used against them when they ran for re-election.

 

[xotoxi]

Ok X. Let's not start acting like Chris.

Just answering a simple question with a simple answer.

Besides, I'm funnier than Chris.

A funeral is funnier than Chris.

Speaking of funny funerals...

And speaking of Iran...

Remember when Ayatollah Khomeini fell out of his casket???

 

[jan]

It doesn't specifically say the government can't bail out a company. However, the Constitution explicitly lists the powers that the government has, not the powers it doesn't have. Any powers not listed in the Constitution the federal government doesn't have.

What is there to prove? The Constitution lists the powers of the federal government, the general welfare clause isn't explicit whatsoever. Also, the founders never intended for the Constitution to give the federal government limitless power, which is what they use the "general welfare clause" for.

Clearly the constitution is open for interpretation. That's why we have a judicial system in place to deal with challenges. With our changing society, what the constitution conveyed in it's day can be open to interpretation in current times. There are a lot of shades of gray.

 

[JBeukema]

Clearly the constitution is open for interpretation.

No, it is not, save for the power of SCOUTS to declare law to be Unconstitutional.

With our changing society, what the constitution conveyed in it's day can be open to interpretation in current times

No it cannot, save through amendments to the text

 

[jan]

No, it is not,

Yes, it is! Why else would so many things go to the judicial system for a judgement to be made?

 

[JBeukema]

No, it is not,

Yes, it is! Why else would so many things go to the judicial system for a judgement to be made?

because the fed has assumed powers not granted by the Constitution

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It doesn't specifically say the government can't bail out a company. However, the Constitution explicitly lists the powers that the government has, not the powers it doesn't have. Any powers not listed in the Constitution the federal government doesn't have.

What is there to prove? The Constitution lists the powers of the federal government, the general welfare clause isn't explicit whatsoever. Also, the founders never intended for the Constitution to give the federal government limitless power, which is what they use the "general welfare clause" for.

Clearly the constitution is open for interpretation. That's why we have a judicial system in place to deal with challenges. With our changing society, what the constitution conveyed in it's day can be open to interpretation in current times. There are a lot of shades of gray.

I don't believe the Constitution is open to interpretation because the times have changed. If we find the Constitution lacking then the framers gave us the means to amend it.

 

[JBeukema]

I don't believe the Constitution is open to interpretation because the times have changed. If we find the Constitution lacking then the framers gave us the means to amend it.

I concur

 

[jillian]

I don't believe the Constitution is open to interpretation because the times have changed. If we find the Constitution lacking then the framers gave us the means to amend it.

marbury v madison says otherwise. stop making it up as you go along.

read.... learn... unless you're uneducable and i don't think you are.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[foggedinn]

Rightly or wrongly, wars have been used to justify many acts that would otherwise be considered unconstitutional. In general, the courts have acquiesced and allowed the executive branch virtual carte blanche whenever the country is at war. Declared or not.

Our society has declared war on so many things (terrorism, drugs, crime,(are we still at war with poverty?)etc.) that the constitution has become little more than a quaint piece of paper.

I believe both sides in the constitutional/unconstitutional argument are missing the point. Until we decide to try solving some of our problems in some way other than declaring war on it, what is or isn't constitutional is irrelevant.

Some believe that the first casualty of war is truth. Untrue. The first casualty of war is law; the death of truth follows.