Stop invoking the Constitution

[TemplarKormac]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

That's what all the folks that have bastardized the document say. General welfare was never intended to be a general power of the feds, expenditures are limited by Section 8 just like defense spending.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Check this out:

“Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905)

"A power to lay taxes for any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for certain specified purposes is a limited power. A power to lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them."

-Judge Joseph Story, 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

‘[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts
or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.’’ The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power."

Killian, Johnny; George Costello; Kenneth Thomas (2004). The Constitution of the United States of America—Analysis and Interpretation

Looks like OKTexas nailed you, Bfgrn.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Are you talking about the Constitution as written or the one bastardized by the courts and politicians? They're not the same you know.

The constitution and it's case law are inseparable, The constitution is the skeleton and case law is the flesh. The founders knew that if they did not make the document flexible and amendable it would fail. Don't know where you guys get this idea that it was meant to be rigid and is adequate on it's own.

The idea comes from their unwarranted hostility to post-Lochner jurisprudence, which most on the right incorrectly perceive as a 'hindrance' to economic prosperity; when in fact it denies corporate America license to endanger the lives of their employees, sell dangerous goods and services to consumers, and destroy the environment in pursuit of profit.

The idea comes from their unwarranted hostility to 14th Amendment jurisprudence, which prohibits conservatives from seeking to violate a woman's right to privacy, gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, and immigrants their right to due process.

Again, the notion of 'the Constitution as written' is meaningless nonsense, completely devoid of merit, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law. That the case law conflicts with errant conservative political and economic dogma is not justification to ignore the law.

 

[Wildman]

At least with a new face of the scum party there is a chance to defeat them.

>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<
i agree, i was reading a few days ago where the entire country swinging RIGHT, especially the "poor" who "FEEEEEL" they were NOT given what was perceived as "promised" due to what "maobama" has said and done...., PLUS people are weary of the same old names keep showing up. name recognition is a negative factor.
............ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Bfgrn]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

"Our tenet ever was that Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated, and that, as it was never meant that they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money. "

-- Thomas Jefferson letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

Thomas Jefferson abdicated that view as soon as he received a letter from U.S. Minister to France Robert Livingstone that Napoleon had changed his mind and wanted to void the Louisiana Purchase. Just 5 days later he wrote to Gallatin, directing him to prepare for a transfer of stock in order to pay France, and added that " it will be well to say as little as possible on the constitutional difficulty, and Congress should act on it without talking"

There was nothing unconstitutional about the Louisiana Purchase, it was negotiated by the executive as a treaty, ratified by the Senate and funded by congress.

You miss the POINT...you want to stand of Jefferson's absolutism, but Thomas Jefferson HIMSELF abdicated that strict ideology...

Jefferson had to put aside his principles because the allowance for this type of transaction was not expressly listed in the Constitution. Waiting for a Constitutional amendment might cause the deal to fall through. Therefore, Jefferson decided to go through with the purchase in the name of "general welfare".

Just because Jefferson might have abandoned original intent does not change that intent. It must be done via Article 5.

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

 

[Seawytch]

Would the OP like to provide a concerned example of a politician unnecessarily or dishonestly "invoking" the constitution? Maybe a really important example which may have prompted this thread?

Come on, TK. I'll help you develop your thoughts.

I don't think TemplarKormac saw this. I'll bump it because I was looking for specific examples as well. The OP and subsequent posts were very vague.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Concerned? Should have been concrete.

 

[Contumacious]

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

 

[Kosh]

This thread is another perfect example of how the far left does not understand the Constitution. To them it is just a GD piece of paper..

 

[whitehall]

Another illustration of the Constitution getting in the way of liberal agenda. Libs want to bend it, twist it into a pretzel, ignore it and find junk in it that doesn't exist but it is still there, thank God.

 

[danielpalos]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Ok. I agree to not Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme laws of the land, and, not Only that, but Any fallacy is that form of Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unless you are prepared to apply it fairly and equally to anyone who is a citizen in America, while obeying it completely and fully yourself; or if you know nothing about it, or of the rights it grants you. Stop invoking it if you plan on twisting its precepts to fit your agenda. Don't invoke the Constitution unless you're ready to exercise it.

Carry on.

Ok. I agree to not Appeal to Ignorance of our supreme laws of the land, and, not Only that, but Any fallacy is that form of Appeal to Ignorance of the law.

What?

 

[TemplarKormac]

This thread is another perfect example of how the far left does not understand the Constitution. To them it is just a GD piece of paper..

Excuse you Kosh, but for the last damned time I am am not a maligned liberal. Or is everyone a liberal to you? If you are ignorant of the constitution, then you don't have any business shoving it other people's faces. It's that simple. If you worship the Constitution, then make sure to do what it says. I bet a lot of us don't even know what all the other 17 Amendments do! So why flaunt this "GD piece of paper" if you don't know anything about it but the 10 original Amendments?

It's like someone saying "Obey the Bible!" without having ever read it.

 

[Bfgrn]

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

 

[Contumacious]

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Yeah, I know. That is a non-violent way to scream at parasites such as yourself.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

Yeah, right. I wonder why it took the politicians 148 years to find that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to create yet another socialist republic. Or did it take that long for US parasites to unite.

 

[Contumacious]

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Yeah, I know. That is a non-violent way to scream at parasites such as yourself.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

Yeah, right. I wonder why it took the politicians 148 years to find out that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to create yet another socialist republic. Or did it take that long for US parasites to unite.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I enjoy listening to liberals talking about the Constitution. They cherry pick the provisions they like and then piss on the rest.

I do agree that such flip flopping is no better if done by the other end of the political spectrum.

I also agree that there is a difference between the Constitution as drafted, intended and as amended versus the "interpretations" of the Constitution which (in many instances) has served to dilute its meaning and purpose.

 

[Kosh]

This thread is another perfect example of how the far left does not understand the Constitution. To them it is just a GD piece of paper..

Excuse you Kosh, but for the last damned time I am am not a maligned liberal. Or is everyone a liberal to you? If you are ignorant of the constitution, then you don't have any business shoving it other people's faces. It's that simple. If you worship the Constitution, then make sure to do what it says. I bet a lot of us don't even know what all the other 17 Amendments do! So why flaunt this "GD piece of paper" if you don't know anything about it but the 10 original Amendments?

It's like someone saying "Obey the Bible!" without having ever read it.

If you read the far left comments on this thread it shows they do not understand the Constitution, unless you consider yourself part of the far left religion.

Let us look at those that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment, mostly on the far left. They want to disarm the citizens, the police and allow the criminals and terrorists to have the "right" to bear arms.

 

[Kosh]

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

Yes the far left religion dictates such things, but it exist inside the far left religion only. The far left is more interested in forcing their religion on others, than what the "spirit" of the Constitution is. Thus proving once again you are a far left drone.

 

[Bfgrn]

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Yeah, I know. That is a non-violent way to scream at parasites such as yourself.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

Yeah, right. I wonder why it took the politicians 148 years to find out that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to create yet another socialist republic. Or did it take that long for US parasites to unite.

Hey pea brain, the 'welfare state' is a construct of wealthy capitalistic societies. The first 'welfare state' was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies.

The Forgotten Churchill
The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state

Better start yelling at yourself you ignorant asshole.


"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

 

[Kosh]

The "original intent" was never agreed on or defined. Jefferson drafted an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana retroactively. But Jefferson’s cabinet members argued against the need for an amendment, and Congress disregarded his draft. The Senate ratified the treaty in October of 1803.

The Louisiana Purchase exposed the limitations of the strict constructionist approach to spending power. Jefferson abandoning HIS beliefs was pragmatic and signaled a more pragmatic interpretation of the general welfare clause...the "Hamilton way" prevailed as it does today.

And it didn't stop Jefferson from calling for spending "be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each State" in his second inaugural address.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


So because of the Louisiana Purchase the politicians now have the authority to use US Treasury funds to feed you, clothe you, insured you, educate you, quench your thirst and engage in wars just so they can enrich war profiteers?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


.

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

You need to use bigger font asshole.

Yeah, I know. That is a non-violent way to scream at parasites such as yourself.

Social insurance is constitutional and is completely congruent with the intent of 'general welfare'

Yeah, right. I wonder why it took the politicians 148 years to find out that the intent of the Founding Fathers was to create yet another socialist republic. Or did it take that long for US parasites to unite.

Hey pea brain, the 'welfare state' is a construct of wealthy capitalistic societies. The first 'welfare state' was Bismarck’s Prussia, which to the dismay of German Social Democrats had instituted compulsory health insurance in 1883. That created a sudden panic on the left. Karl Marx had died weeks before, so the socialist leader August Bebel consulted his friend Friedrich Engels, who insisted that socialists should vote against it, as they did. The first welfare state on earth was created against socialist opposition.

The forgotten truth about health provision is that socialism and state welfare are old enemies, and welfare overspending is a characteristic of advanced capitalist economies.

The Forgotten Churchill
The man who stared down Hitler also helped create the modern welfare state

Better start yelling at yourself you ignorant asshole.


"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, (the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

Thus proving that the far left has no clue about the Constitution other than what their religious programming tells them..