Constitution

[MaggieMae]

lawyers, overall, are liberal. lawschools, overall, are liberal. the number of conservative lawyers is miniscule compared to the liberal lawyers. so....that jillian is a liberal and a lawyer is not surprising based solely on her extreme liberalism.

Of course I don't suppose it ever occurs to you that the level of intelligence being as high as it is among the legal community that those so-called "liberal" lawyers might be right, and you might be wrong. They obviously make a better case on most issues, otherwise, conservatism would rule.

Most academics of Constitutional law, history and political science have studied an enormous amount of material before drawing conclusions.

 

[MaggieMae]

Exactly how do you see that the government limited today?

How 'bout that first one: the governments right to rule comes from the people.

What a joke, that one could and probably should be recorded as the fourth biggest lie in the world.

The government ignores the people regularly, it ignored the people when we told them NO on the Bush bailout and BO, what a disaster; he now represents the biggest political power grab in history. Every time I hear BO say “this (or that) is what the people voted for”, I want to vomit.

By the time the ignoramuses who voted for him wake up, it'll be too late. Now that I think about it, it’s already too late. This train will run until the calendar strikes 12. The best we can hope for is to slow it down when the calendar strikes 10.

More gloom and doom projecting, but never EVER an offering of how YOU would have handled the economic crisis. Find just one expert economist who has credible information that a laissez-faire approach could have worked and not resulted in an immediate collapse the entire global economy.

 

[MaggieMae]

My son has history project due next week. It's a timeline and write up covering six of the chapters in their history book. It basically covers pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution.

In reading over the information, when I started reading the 'Seven Principles of the Constitution' when I read these principles, I did a double take. 1. 'Popular Sovereignty (who gives the government its power). Popular sovereignty is a government in which the people rule. Everyone I've spoken too thinks bailing out failing companies is wrong, wrong, wrong yet . . . the government does as it pleases, not what the people want. 2. Republicanism - the people exercise their power by voting of their political reps. Ok -- but how do you get reps who will represent the people instead of their own interests? I don't trust any of the politicians to hold my best interest in the forefront, do you? Obama vs. McCain. I mean, really? This was our choice? 3. Limited Government - ok, this was the one that really made me stop. The Constitution was specifically framed for the government to be limited and yet . . . . the government is anything but limited, and hasn't been for awhile, and is growing bigger and bigger as we speak. The principle of limited government is also closely related to the 'rule of law', where in the American government everyone, citizens and powerful leaders alike, must obey the law. Individuals or groups cannot twist or bypass the law to serve their own interests. How many of Obama's cabinet picks have broken the law and yet . . . . a blind eye is turned to it and they are given the job.

In reading over all of the information in the history book it made me sick to see where our government started and how far off course we've gone. I see government control in so many things where it just shouldn't be . . . when will it stop? Honestly, I don't think it will. It makes me sad to think that in another generation or so they won't have any idea that once upon a time people had the freedom to make choices instead of the government deciding for them.

Loss of freedom includes the loss of representation and the violation of oath of office, by our elected officials. Any elected official that violates their oath of office should automatically be removed from office.

All politicians holding federal office have, as a part of their oath of office, swore to uphold the constitution, but they violate that oath with impunity.

The limited powers granted the legislature include the following:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; to provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and rebel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Not to mention the tenth amendment which 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".

Most, if not all of the laws, that congress has passed using the "commerce clause" as their excuse, should be repealed, now.

Ah, but then there's that pesky Article VI, which states:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Exactly how do you see that the government limited today?

How 'bout that first one: the governments right to rule comes from the people.

What a joke, that one could and probably should be recorded as the fourth biggest lie in the world.

The government ignores the people regularly, it ignored the people when we told them NO on the Bush bailout and BO, what a disaster; he now represents the biggest political power grab in history. Every time I hear BO say “this (or that) is what the people voted for”, I want to vomit.

By the time the ignoramuses who voted for him wake up, it'll be too late. Now that I think about it, it’s already too late. This train will run until the calendar strikes 12. The best we can hope for is to slow it down when the calendar strikes 10.

More gloom and doom projecting, but never EVER an offering of how YOU would have handled the economic crisis. Find just one expert economist who has credible information that a laissez-faire approach could have worked and not resulted in an immediately collapse the entire global economy.

I know one thing I wouldn't have done, I wouldn't have bailed out the auto companies. They are exactly where they need to be - declaring bankruptcy - because they failed. Why in the hell does the government think it needs to prop up failing businesses? Why didn't they declare bankruptcy months ago? I read on here many, many people saying this is exactly where they would end up, throwing billions upon billions at the problem won't fix it, and it didn't. Except now, the government has it tentacles in the auto business. You're really ok with that? You really think the government is going to let go? Where is this (government running private businesses) in the constitution?

 

[NOBama]

Exactly how do you see that the government limited today?

How 'bout that first one: the governments right to rule comes from the people.

What a joke, that one could and probably should be recorded as the fourth biggest lie in the world.

The government ignores the people regularly, it ignored the people when we told them NO on the Bush bailout and BO, what a disaster; he now represents the biggest political power grab in history. Every time I hear BO say “this (or that) is what the people voted for”, I want to vomit.

By the time the ignoramuses who voted for him wake up, it'll be too late. Now that I think about it, it’s already too late. This train will run until the calendar strikes 12. The best we can hope for is to slow it down when the calendar strikes 10.

More gloom and doom projecting, but never EVER an offering of how YOU would have handled the economic crisis. Find just one expert economist who has credible information that a laissez-faire approach could have worked and not resulted in an immediate collapse the entire global economy.

Before you make such laissez-faire accusations, you should try reading the board. I for one am not going to reiterate my positions every time a greenhorn joins the board.

 

[Annie]

Exactly how do you see that the government limited today?

How 'bout that first one: the governments right to rule comes from the people.

What a joke, that one could and probably should be recorded as the fourth biggest lie in the world.

The government ignores the people regularly, it ignored the people when we told them NO on the Bush bailout and BO, what a disaster; he now represents the biggest political power grab in history. Every time I hear BO say “this (or that) is what the people voted for”, I want to vomit.

By the time the ignoramuses who voted for him wake up, it'll be too late. Now that I think about it, it’s already too late. This train will run until the calendar strikes 12. The best we can hope for is to slow it down when the calendar strikes 10.

More gloom and doom projecting, but never EVER an offering of how YOU would have handled the economic crisis. Find just one expert economist who has credible information that a laissez-faire approach could have worked and not resulted in an immediate collapse the entire global economy.

LOL! I thought it was the 'neo-cons' into fear mongering!

 

[Citizen]

My son has history project due next week. It's a timeline and write up covering six of the chapters in their history book. It basically covers pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution.

In reading over the information, when I started reading the 'Seven Principles of the Constitution' when I read these principles, I did a double take. 1. 'Popular Sovereignty (who gives the government its power). Popular sovereignty is a government in which the people rule. Everyone I've spoken too thinks bailing out failing companies is wrong, wrong, wrong yet . . . the government does as it pleases, not what the people want. 2. Republicanism - the people exercise their power by voting of their political reps. Ok -- but how do you get reps who will represent the people instead of their own interests? I don't trust any of the politicians to hold my best interest in the forefront, do you? Obama vs. McCain. I mean, really? This was our choice? 3. Limited Government - ok, this was the one that really made me stop. The Constitution was specifically framed for the government to be limited and yet . . . . the government is anything but limited, and hasn't been for awhile, and is growing bigger and bigger as we speak. The principle of limited government is also closely related to the 'rule of law', where in the American government everyone, citizens and powerful leaders alike, must obey the law. Individuals or groups cannot twist or bypass the law to serve their own interests. How many of Obama's cabinet picks have broken the law and yet . . . . a blind eye is turned to it and they are given the job.

In reading over all of the information in the history book it made me sick to see where our government started and how far off course we've gone. I see government control in so many things where it just shouldn't be . . . when will it stop? Honestly, I don't think it will. It makes me sad to think that in another generation or so they won't have any idea that once upon a time people had the freedom to make choices instead of the government deciding for them.

Don't bring this up amongst our Left leaning friends. They will tell you that even though it is clearly stated that the Federal Government was to be a limited Government and that AMENDMENTS were required to give it new powers, that the supposed General Welfare clause ( one that does NOT exist) gives the Government UNLIMITED power.

That new Amendments are not needed when one can just claim it is for the "general" Welfare. Again a clause that does not exist.

Lawyers, politicians hell every walk of life for the left will tell you this.

Just before the Constitution lists the REAL Limits of power given the Federal Government, the wrote a paragraph to explain WHY these powers were granted and they added a point that THESE powers were for the General Welfare of the Country and the people.

Now the left takes that OUT of context and claims, even though it is not one of the listed powers, that some how it is now a power of the Government.

The Federalist papers, other papers, comments from the Founders all indicate this simply is NOT true. The Constitution itself proves it is not true as it does not list " the General Welfare" as a separate power at all. It is simply a descriptor of WHY the real powers exist.

Jillian is one of the worst offenders, she keeps reminding us she went to LAW school and is a practicing Attorney and she is so badly informed on what the Constitution means as to beg the question? Was she ever given a class on the document?

However you want to spin it, the Constitution was never intended to be an all-inclusive forever document. It was a series of guidelines, which is precisely why it IS a "living" document. The framers (and even the contributors to the Federalist Papers) knew that as the new nation grew both by population, territory, invention, innovation and thus modernization, only the basic tenets of the Constitution would remain. The reason we have a Supreme Court is to sort out some of the intentional ambiguities therein.

There have been many, many "laws" passed that you will not see specifically identified pursuant to the language contained in the Constitution.

The Constitution is not a living doccument but a legally binding one, and as a written doccument, what it meant when it was adopted, it means today, and can only be changed through the Amendment process which is clearly spelled out in Article 5 of the Constitution.

"No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representative of the people is superior to the people." - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 78.

"On every question of construction (of The Constitution), let us carry ourselves back to the time when The Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson

"No generation has a right to contract debts greater than can be paid off during the course of its own existence." - George Washington to James Madison 1789.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt (1759-1806

"There doubtless are many causes for the loss of freedom, but surely a major cause has been the growth of government and its increasing control of our lives. Today, government, directly or indirectly, controls the spending of as much as half our national income." - Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in Economics. That statement was made in 1998 way before our current spending rampage, so today, IMHO, the government spending exceeds our total national income.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The US government is a hell of a long way from what it was in 1789.

Of course it's a very different world than it was in 1789, too.

I think that what you guys want from your government is no longer possible, to be honest.

If we still lived in the 18th century, it might make sense, of course, but we don't live in that world anymore.

Not that I'm thrilled with our government either, but I think some of you people are highly unrealistic about what powers the government really needs to have now to inusre that the United States of America remains a viable nation.

And that attitude is EXACTLY why the Government gets away with ignoring the Constitution.

You see there is BUILT INTO the document, the means to change it. If the federal Government wants Social Security and medicare, make a damn amendment and let the people decide.

If the Federal Government wants to meddle in States rights versus Eductation, MAKE AN AMENDMENT and let the people decide.

As of right now the Constitution is ignored more then it is followed. And your attitude is, darn, well we need those powers. USE the Amendment process and GET them.

But Social Security, Medicare and Education were never specifically written into the Constitution in the first place. Neither was government wiretapping, per se, nor abortion rights, per se. And where would construction of the interstate highway system be found in the Constitution? According to your logic, by following the strict tenets of the Constitution, we would still be driving over dirt roads.

Limited government? Not by a long shot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My son has history project due next week. It's a timeline and write up covering six of the chapters in their history book. It basically covers pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution.

In reading over the information, when I started reading the 'Seven Principles of the Constitution' when I read these principles, I did a double take. 1. 'Popular Sovereignty (who gives the government its power). Popular sovereignty is a government in which the people rule. Everyone I've spoken too thinks bailing out failing companies is wrong, wrong, wrong yet . . . the government does as it pleases, not what the people want. 2. Republicanism - the people exercise their power by voting of their political reps. Ok -- but how do you get reps who will represent the people instead of their own interests? I don't trust any of the politicians to hold my best interest in the forefront, do you? Obama vs. McCain. I mean, really? This was our choice? 3. Limited Government - ok, this was the one that really made me stop. The Constitution was specifically framed for the government to be limited and yet . . . . the government is anything but limited, and hasn't been for awhile, and is growing bigger and bigger as we speak. The principle of limited government is also closely related to the 'rule of law', where in the American government everyone, citizens and powerful leaders alike, must obey the law. Individuals or groups cannot twist or bypass the law to serve their own interests. How many of Obama's cabinet picks have broken the law and yet . . . . a blind eye is turned to it and they are given the job.

In reading over all of the information in the history book it made me sick to see where our government started and how far off course we've gone. I see government control in so many things where it just shouldn't be . . . when will it stop? Honestly, I don't think it will. It makes me sad to think that in another generation or so they won't have any idea that once upon a time people had the freedom to make choices instead of the government deciding for them.

Don't bring this up amongst our Left leaning friends. They will tell you that even though it is clearly stated that the Federal Government was to be a limited Government and that AMENDMENTS were required to give it new powers, that the supposed General Welfare clause ( one that does NOT exist) gives the Government UNLIMITED power.

That new Amendments are not needed when one can just claim it is for the "general" Welfare. Again a clause that does not exist.

Lawyers, politicians hell every walk of life for the left will tell you this.

Just before the Constitution lists the REAL Limits of power given the Federal Government, the wrote a paragraph to explain WHY these powers were granted and they added a point that THESE powers were for the General Welfare of the Country and the people.

Now the left takes that OUT of context and claims, even though it is not one of the listed powers, that some how it is now a power of the Government.

The Federalist papers, other papers, comments from the Founders all indicate this simply is NOT true. The Constitution itself proves it is not true as it does not list " the General Welfare" as a separate power at all. It is simply a descriptor of WHY the real powers exist.

Jillian is one of the worst offenders, she keeps reminding us she went to LAW school and is a practicing Attorney and she is so badly informed on what the Constitution means as to beg the question? Was she ever given a class on the document?

However you want to spin it, the Constitution was never intended to be an all-inclusive forever document. It was a series of guidelines, which is precisely why it IS a "living" document. The framers (and even the contributors to the Federalist Papers) knew that as the new nation grew both by population, territory, invention, innovation and thus modernization, only the basic tenets of the Constitution would remain. The reason we have a Supreme Court is to sort out some of the intentional ambiguities therein.

There have been many, many "laws" passed that you will not see specifically identified pursuant to the language contained in the Constitution.

Yes, the founders knew that as time went on the Constitution may be found to be deficient in some areas and need to be updated. That's why they created the amendment process. They never intended to for people to simply ignore the Constitution and do whatever they felt they needed to do. If you want the government to have a certain power you must amend the Constitution to give them that power. The amendment process was made so difficult because the founders didn't want the government to be able to increase it's power on a whim.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

My son has history project due next week. It's a timeline and write up covering six of the chapters in their history book. It basically covers pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution.

In reading over the information, when I started reading the 'Seven Principles of the Constitution' when I read these principles, I did a double take. 1. 'Popular Sovereignty (who gives the government its power). Popular sovereignty is a government in which the people rule. Everyone I've spoken too thinks bailing out failing companies is wrong, wrong, wrong yet . . . the government does as it pleases, not what the people want. 2. Republicanism - the people exercise their power by voting of their political reps. Ok -- but how do you get reps who will represent the people instead of their own interests? I don't trust any of the politicians to hold my best interest in the forefront, do you? Obama vs. McCain. I mean, really? This was our choice? 3. Limited Government - ok, this was the one that really made me stop. The Constitution was specifically framed for the government to be limited and yet . . . . the government is anything but limited, and hasn't been for awhile, and is growing bigger and bigger as we speak. The principle of limited government is also closely related to the 'rule of law', where in the American government everyone, citizens and powerful leaders alike, must obey the law. Individuals or groups cannot twist or bypass the law to serve their own interests. How many of Obama's cabinet picks have broken the law and yet . . . . a blind eye is turned to it and they are given the job.

In reading over all of the information in the history book it made me sick to see where our government started and how far off course we've gone. I see government control in so many things where it just shouldn't be . . . when will it stop? Honestly, I don't think it will. It makes me sad to think that in another generation or so they won't have any idea that once upon a time people had the freedom to make choices instead of the government deciding for them.

Loss of freedom includes the loss of representation and the violation of oath of office, by our elected officials. Any elected official that violates their oath of office should automatically be removed from office.

All politicians holding federal office have, as a part of their oath of office, swore to uphold the constitution, but they violate that oath with impunity.

The limited powers granted the legislature include the following:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; to provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and rebel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Not to mention the tenth amendment which 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".

Most, if not all of the laws, that congress has passed using the "commerce clause" as their excuse, should be repealed, now.

Ah, but then there's that pesky Article VI, which states:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

No one is arguing that the Constitution or any laws "made in Pursuance thereof" are not the supreme law of the land. It's those laws that are not made in "Pursuance" of the Constitution that we are against.

 

[JBeukema]

The FF understood that the Constitution would need to adapt as times passed, so they included the means to do so. They also knew that the masses are stupid and fickle (hence their hated of a direct Democracy), so they made changing it hard to avoid wishy-washy fads that could destroy America.

 

[JW Frogen]

Americans being human (or so I am told) things went off course pretty quick. Like when Washington used an army to enforce a liqour tax or when Jefferson sent a Navy against Islamo Facist terrorists in North Africa BEFORE he got the consent of Congress, even waiting to tell Congress until that Navy was too far away to recall.

God I love the Founding Fathers, their sons are just like them.

Only with lower IQs.

 

[DamnYankee]

My son has history project due next week. It's a timeline and write up covering six of the chapters in their history book. It basically covers pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution.

In reading over the information, when I started reading the 'Seven Principles of the Constitution' when I read these principles, I did a double take. 1. 'Popular Sovereignty (who gives the government its power). Popular sovereignty is a government in which the people rule. Everyone I've spoken too thinks bailing out failing companies is wrong, wrong, wrong yet . . . the government does as it pleases, not what the people want. 2. Republicanism - the people exercise their power by voting of their political reps. Ok -- but how do you get reps who will represent the people instead of their own interests? I don't trust any of the politicians to hold my best interest in the forefront, do you? Obama vs. McCain. I mean, really? This was our choice? 3. Limited Government - ok, this was the one that really made me stop. The Constitution was specifically framed for the government to be limited and yet . . . . the government is anything but limited, and hasn't been for awhile, and is growing bigger and bigger as we speak. The principle of limited government is also closely related to the 'rule of law', where in the American government everyone, citizens and powerful leaders alike, must obey the law. Individuals or groups cannot twist or bypass the law to serve their own interests. How many of Obama's cabinet picks have broken the law and yet . . . . a blind eye is turned to it and they are given the job.

In reading over all of the information in the history book it made me sick to see where our government started and how far off course we've gone. I see government control in so many things where it just shouldn't be . . . when will it stop? Honestly, I don't think it will. It makes me sad to think that in another generation or so they won't have any idea that once upon a time people had the freedom to make choices instead of the government deciding for them.

Has your son learned all that yet?

 

[DamnYankee]

The US government is a hell of a long way from what it was in 1789.

Of course it's a very different world than it was in 1789, too.

I think that what you guys want from your government is no longer possible, to be honest.

If we still lived in the 18th century, it might make sense, of course, but we don't live in that world anymore.

Not that I'm thrilled with our government either, but I think some of you people are highly unrealistic about what powers the government really needs to have now to inusre that the United States of America remains a viable nation.

And that attitude is EXACTLY why the Government gets away with ignoring the Constitution.

You see there is BUILT INTO the document, the means to change it. If the federal Government wants Social Security and medicare, make a damn amendment and let the people decide.

If the Federal Government wants to meddle in States rights versus Eductation, MAKE AN AMENDMENT and let the people decide.

As of right now the Constitution is ignored more then it is followed. And your attitude is, darn, well we need those powers. USE the Amendment process and GET them.

But Social Security, Medicare and Education were never specifically written into the Constitution in the first place. Neither was government wiretapping, per se, nor abortion rights, per se. And where would construction of the interstate highway system be found in the Constitution? According to your logic, by following the strict tenets of the Constitution, we would still be driving over dirt roads.

Really? And here we were believing that it was the interpretation of those strict tenets that were responsible for the federal implementation of the laws re. Social Security, Medicare, education, government wire tapping, abortion, etc. The problem is "general welfare" and "right to privacy" are interpreted differently dependent upon who is doing the interpreting. The tenets of the Constitution are every bit as valid now, with the legally authorized amendments agreed upon by Congress, as they ever were, and the road has been well paved since. If you're so concerned about dirt roads, perhaps some Congressional encouragement for further legally authorized amendments would be in order.

 

[editec]

The Constitution of the United States of America is NOT a suicide pacts, folks.

Your delusions that you guys own the one and only "strict intpretation" would have lead this nation to its grave centuries ago.

What most of you seem to want is a government which basically cannot work.

Many of you look at the excesses that our goverments do that you do not like, and you imagine that they are violating the constitution by doing things that you cannot find clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

But do you do the same for those things (also not found in the Constitution) that you don't like?

No, you do not.

You people don't really want a viable national government, I think.

You want a confederation of states. But that was tried and it failed miserable.

The problems we have are not the result of the government taking more power than it should have, I think.

The problem of our government is simply bad governance., bad policy, bad ideas writ large into our society.

 

[Zoom-boing]

My son has history project due next week. It's a timeline and write up covering six of the chapters in their history book. It basically covers pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution.

In reading over the information, when I started reading the 'Seven Principles of the Constitution' when I read these principles, I did a double take. 1. 'Popular Sovereignty (who gives the government its power). Popular sovereignty is a government in which the people rule. Everyone I've spoken too thinks bailing out failing companies is wrong, wrong, wrong yet . . . the government does as it pleases, not what the people want. 2. Republicanism - the people exercise their power by voting of their political reps. Ok -- but how do you get reps who will represent the people instead of their own interests? I don't trust any of the politicians to hold my best interest in the forefront, do you? Obama vs. McCain. I mean, really? This was our choice? 3. Limited Government - ok, this was the one that really made me stop. The Constitution was specifically framed for the government to be limited and yet . . . . the government is anything but limited, and hasn't been for awhile, and is growing bigger and bigger as we speak. The principle of limited government is also closely related to the 'rule of law', where in the American government everyone, citizens and powerful leaders alike, must obey the law. Individuals or groups cannot twist or bypass the law to serve their own interests. How many of Obama's cabinet picks have broken the law and yet . . . . a blind eye is turned to it and they are given the job.

In reading over all of the information in the history book it made me sick to see where our government started and how far off course we've gone. I see government control in so many things where it just shouldn't be . . . when will it stop? Honestly, I don't think it will. It makes me sad to think that in another generation or so they won't have any idea that once upon a time people had the freedom to make choices instead of the government deciding for them.

Has your son learned all that yet?

The part about the pre-Revolutionary war to post Constitution? Yes. The part of what is going on today? No. My son is ASD (autistic spectrum disorder). He is in adaptive History and English classes, as his learning is limited.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I think an inability to implement legitimate democracy is a deficiency of republicanism as a whole, which is why I instead advocate anarchism, keeping in mind Gaston Leval's observation that the Spanish anarchists "instituted not bourgeois formal democracy but genuine grass roots functional libertarian democracy, where each individual participated directly in the revolutionary reorganization of social life." That said, I've long recognized the unfeasibility of the implementation of anarchism in my lifetime, so I instead focus on broad progressivism and libertarianism.

Now, I also do believe that the founders had an interest in equality of opportunity, and did not realize that rapid industrialization would cement the power of the financial class and prevent easy transition by the masses. Their existence in an agrarian society characterized by relative equality of opportunity for white male landowners over 21 (heh), prevented any major speculation about this. That's why I favor nationalization of major industries and the extension of democracy into the economic realm through worker-owned enterprises and labor cooperatives, combined with the destruction of wealth and market concentration and the facilitation of legitimately competitive market enterprise through the radical re-organization of property rights so that genuine equality of opportunity is established. It's through that means that the role of government, an integral agent in the capitalist economy, can be drastically reduced in the market socialist economy and democracy can flourish.

If your concept EVER gets enacted, I'm voting with my feet. That place is no place I'd like to live.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Constitution of the United States of America is NOT a suicide pacts, folks.

Your delusions that you guys own the one and only "strict intpretation" would have lead this nation to its grave centuries ago.

What most of you seem to want is a government which basically cannot work.

Many of you look at the excesses that our goverments do that you do not like, and you imagine that they are violating the constitution by doing things that you cannot find clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

But do you do the same for those things (also not found in the Constitution) that you don't like?

No, you do not.

You people don't really want a viable national government, I think.

You want a confederation of states. But that was tried and it failed miserable.

The problems we have are not the result of the government taking more power than it should have, I think.

The problem of our government is simply bad governance., bad policy, bad ideas writ large into our society.

Unfortunately for your argument, what we actually want is a national government that proved itself for nearly 150 years. We don't want whatever it was you were describing. The national government we want has worked for more that twice as long as he one you wish to defend.

We're not asking for some crazy interpretation of the Constitution. Let's take a look at the Wickard decision. This is one of the most critical and wrongly decided decisions leading to much of the expansion of government in the last 60 years. The Wickard decision dealt with construing the Interstate commerce clause in Article I, Section 8.

A New Deal regulation sought to regulate the amount of wheat in production to control prices. Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permitted. Filburn however, argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

The court held that despite the fact that the wheat Filburn grew was not intended for commerce at all, but personal use, it nevertheless "effected" interstate commerce and therefore the federal government was within its Constitutional limits to regulate his growing of wheat.

After this decision, the US Government ceased to be a limited government. If you disagree, see Darby, see Heart of Atlanta Motel (Ollie's Barbeque).

 

[Care4all]

Nah, I don't think Jill is a lawyer or lives in New York, for that matter. I have no evidence of that; I just enjoy disputing her claims about her own identity...reciprocal justice, y'know.

she most certainly lives in new york, one neighborhood over from where i lived when there, and she knows enough minutia on the area, that i can say for certain she is from new york.

and she is a lawyer too... so differ with ya there as well...

 

[Tech_Esq]

The US government is a hell of a long way from what it was in 1789.

Of course it's a very different world than it was in 1789, too.

I think that what you guys want from your government is no longer possible, to be honest.

If we still lived in the 18th century, it might make sense, of course, but we don't live in that world anymore.

Not that I'm thrilled with our government either, but I think some of you people are highly unrealistic about what powers the government really needs to have now to inusre that the United States of America remains a viable nation.

And that attitude is EXACTLY why the Government gets away with ignoring the Constitution.

You see there is BUILT INTO the document, the means to change it. If the federal Government wants Social Security and medicare, make a damn amendment and let the people decide.

If the Federal Government wants to meddle in States rights versus Eductation, MAKE AN AMENDMENT and let the people decide.

As of right now the Constitution is ignored more then it is followed. And your attitude is, darn, well we need those powers. USE the Amendment process and GET them.

But Social Security, Medicare and Education were never specifically written into the Constitution in the first place. Neither was government wiretapping, per se, nor abortion rights, per se. And where would construction of the interstate highway system be found in the Constitution? According to your logic, by following the strict tenets of the Constitution, we would still be driving over dirt roads.

Duh, the Interstate highway system falls squarely within a the Interstate commerce clause. The clause was meant to give the Congress the power to promote commerce between the states, an improved road to conduct commerce over is four square within their powers under the Constitution.

Education is for the states to decide and not the province of the federal government. Social welfare programs should have had to been added by amendment to the Constitution. We've amended it 27 times, if those programs are so beneficial to everyone, they would have passed with no problem.

Wiretapping, is just a technological advance, but the basic concept of searching someone's private effects, like correspondence (after all, listening to oral conversation, is not distinguishable in concept from reading letters of correspondence), is plainly covered under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Abortion rights should be left to the states to decide, but activist judges in Griswold v. Connecticut "invented" a new right. They based this on the "penumbra" of rights "flowing" from other amendments like the 4th, 5th and 8th amendments.

It was under the auspices of this "right" that Roe v. Wade was decided. Since the right is bullshit, the subsequent decision is bullshit. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't make Roe good law. The right should be guaranteed by the states or by amendment to the Constitution.