"that's not in the constitution!

[Avorysuds]

So do we only go for Madisons interpretation? Because honestly I dont see how that can be applied to modern day America like the Jefferson quote says above

Show me, I just dare you to show me where "we follow Madison’s interpretation." We only follow big Government, and look how ******* wonderful things are.

That's what gets me the most. There is no small Government only huge bloated massive Government and yet "you people" keep bitching as if us "small government" guys are oppressing your wonderful ideas. Mostly we tell you a prediction of how and why your programs will fail and oddly we get REALLY ******* close.

 

[Tech_Esq]

^^^^^
Yeah, what he and Madison said.

Do you always ignore questions and statements that you know you have no logical response for? It seems to be "your thing"

Ummm....pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Oddball]

^^^^^
Yeah, what he and Madison said.

Do you always ignore questions and statements that you know you have no logical response for? It seems to be "your thing"

No...I just give up on re-re-re-re-re-re-re-explaining things to brick walls.

 

[RDD_1210]

^^^^^
Yeah, what he and Madison said.

Do you always ignore questions and statements that you know you have no logical response for? It seems to be "your thing"

Ummm....pot calling the kettle black.

I thought you said you were going to reread Hamiltons interpretation? Well, did you? How come you haven't quoted him? .......because it doesn't fit your agenda?

 

[Tech_Esq]

So do we only go for Madisons interpretation? Because honestly I dont see how that can be applied to modern day America like the Jefferson quote says above

You notice they haven't brought up Hamiltons viewpoint or Jeffersons? Even though its been pointed it out to them multiple times, they REFUSE to accept that even the founding fathers had different opinions.

Give me a link to Hamilton and I'll read him. I did a quick search and I got a mishmash of other people's interpretation of Hamilton.

I can tell you now though, Hamilton was an extremist on the central government. As much as Richard Henry Lee was against the National Government, Hamilton was for it. Hamilton did not think that the Constitution gave the federal government near enough power and always fought for more power for the central government. But, Hamilton was an outlier. Just as Richard Henry Lee was on the other side. Each got their licks in though. Lee got the Bill of Rights and Hamilton eventually got his central bank. Tell us how much you love the Fed now.

 

[Avorysuds]

Do you always ignore questions and statements that you know you have no logical response for? It seems to be "your thing"

Ummm....pot calling the kettle black.

I thought you said you were going to reread Hamiltons interpretation? Well, did you? How come you haven't quoted him? .......because it doesn't fit your agenda?

Try posting a link... Then realize we already do things "your way" and it ain't lookin so good, lolz.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Do you always ignore questions and statements that you know you have no logical response for? It seems to be "your thing"

Ummm....pot calling the kettle black.

I thought you said you were going to reread Hamiltons interpretation? Well, did you? How come you haven't quoted him? .......because it doesn't fit your agenda?

See the next post. You haven't responded to me or Madison except to say "read Hamilton"

 

[RDD_1210]

So do we only go for Madisons interpretation? Because honestly I dont see how that can be applied to modern day America like the Jefferson quote says above

You notice they haven't brought up Hamiltons viewpoint or Jeffersons? Even though its been pointed it out to them multiple times, they REFUSE to accept that even the founding fathers had different opinions.

Give me a link to Hamilton and I'll read him. I did a quick search and I got a mishmash of other people's interpretation of Hamilton.

I can tell you now though, Hamilton was an extremist on the central government. As much as Richard Henry Lee was against the National Government, Hamilton was for it. Hamilton did not think that the Constitution gave the federal government near enough power and always fought for more power for the central government. But, Hamilton was an outlier. Just as Richard Henry Lee was on the other side. Each got their licks in though. Lee got the Bill of Rights and Hamilton eventually got his central bank. Tell us how much you love the Fed now.

Here we go with the discrediting of the founding fathers. LOL! I knew that was only a matter of time. You people are beyond pathetic. Hypocritical to the core. You've all proved my point countless times over in this thread.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ummm....pot calling the kettle black.

I thought you said you were going to reread Hamiltons interpretation? Well, did you? How come you haven't quoted him? .......because it doesn't fit your agenda?

See the next post. You haven't responded to me or Madison except to say "read Hamilton"

I said even the founding fathers disagreed on major issues. Hence, you can't cite one of them and act like that's the final word. I'm not claiming Hamiltons is the authority or anyone else should be, but you want us to think the debate is over because of what Madison said. That's not how it works.

 

[Tech_Esq]

You notice they haven't brought up Hamiltons viewpoint or Jeffersons? Even though its been pointed it out to them multiple times, they REFUSE to accept that even the founding fathers had different opinions.

Give me a link to Hamilton and I'll read him. I did a quick search and I got a mishmash of other people's interpretation of Hamilton.

I can tell you now though, Hamilton was an extremist on the central government. As much as Richard Henry Lee was against the National Government, Hamilton was for it. Hamilton did not think that the Constitution gave the federal government near enough power and always fought for more power for the central government. But, Hamilton was an outlier. Just as Richard Henry Lee was on the other side. Each got their licks in though. Lee got the Bill of Rights and Hamilton eventually got his central bank. Tell us how much you love the Fed now.

Here we go with the discrediting of the founding fathers. LOL! I knew that was only a matter of time. You people are beyond pathetic. Hypocritical to the core. You've all proved my point countless times over in this thread.

The only point of yours that we've proved over and over on this thread is that you do indeed have a point on that tiny little head of yours.

Now, I did no such thing. I did not "discredit" Hamilton anymore than I did Richard Henry Lee. He had a point of view and he fought for it. It was partially adopted. Lee had a point of view and it was eventually partially adopted. Madison however, is the mainstream, not an outlier. That's why he wrote the document and they didn't.

 

[gekaap]

Madison wrote it (this clause). Quit deflecting.

I'm familiar with Madison's Federalist 41 having quoted it here a thousand times. I'll check out Hamilton and get back to you. If it's in the Federalist Papers I've read it but it's been a long time. I'll get back to you.

Unfortunately for Madison, he's not the authority on the matter. The constitution puts authority to interpret the law into the courts. So many ultra conservatives love to say "Oh, this is unconstitutional" yet constantly ignore when the courts have consistently held otherwise.

 

[Avorysuds]

I thought you said you were going to reread Hamiltons interpretation? Well, did you? How come you haven't quoted him? .......because it doesn't fit your agenda?

See the next post. You haven't responded to me or Madison except to say "read Hamilton"

I said even the founding fathers disagreed on major issues. Hence, you can't cite one of them and act like that's the final word. I'm not claiming Hamiltons is the authority or anyone else should be, but you want us to think the debate is over because of what Madison said. That's not how it works.

No you ******* trolling moron... The debate is over because we are TRILLIONS in debt trying to pay for all the General Welfare wonder programs that seem to collapse on themselves...

Sure, absolutely… military has some big waste and I agree with that. Here is the BIG difference. I, and many others are willing to cut massive military spending while you are not willing to cut ANY General Welfare spending. Instead you only want to argue we cut military while DUN DUN DUN! You support Democrats who expand military spending ******* LOLZ!

Shocking, a liberal who is everything the hate haha.

 

[Vanquish]

One of the things that pisses me off the most on USMB are people who base their idiocy on whether something is IN the constitution or not. Don't get me wrong, it's a glorious document with control over our country. The Founding Father's crowning achievement.

That being said...

Do the people around here realize that there are agencies and laws and other governmental actions that aren't IN the constitution, but yet are STILL constitutional?

Does anyone around here realize that there are bodies of law, doctrines, statutes etc. that have built up over time that are 100% legal / constitutional but aren't IN the constitution???

I'm sick and tired of people who don't get that...and yet still think they are legal scholars.

 

[VaYank5150]

See the next post. You haven't responded to me or Madison except to say "read Hamilton"

I said even the founding fathers disagreed on major issues. Hence, you can't cite one of them and act like that's the final word. I'm not claiming Hamiltons is the authority or anyone else should be, but you want us to think the debate is over because of what Madison said. That's not how it works.

No you ******* trolling moron... The debate is over because we are TRILLIONS in debt trying to pay for all the General Welfare wonder programs that seem to collapse on themselves...

Sure, absolutely… military has some big waste and I agree with that. Here is the BIG difference. I, and many others are willing to cut massive military spending while you are not willing to cut ANY General Welfare spending. Instead you only want to argue we cut military while DUN DUN DUN! You support Democrats who expand military spending ******* LOLZ!

Shocking, a liberal who is everything the hate haha.

I am for cuts across the board. Please show me the massive military and DOD cuts that the GOP have put on the table.

 

[Avorysuds]

Madison wrote it (this clause). Quit deflecting.

I'm familiar with Madison's Federalist 41 having quoted it here a thousand times. I'll check out Hamilton and get back to you. If it's in the Federalist Papers I've read it but it's been a long time. I'll get back to you.

Unfortunately for Madison, he's not the authority on the matter. The constitution puts authority to interpret the law into the courts. So many ultra conservatives love to say "Oh, this is unconstitutional" yet constantly ignore when the courts have consistently held otherwise.

And right about the time the country started using Hamilton’s views the country has been bankrupt and barrowing to stay afloat. Now the time is coming when that debt is so far beyond sustainable we might as well not own our own country. Good job Hamilton!

 

[ClosedCaption]

So basically thing do not have to be in the constitution for them to be constitutional. It's all up to interpretation is what I'm seeing

The basic concept is, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. The ultra-strict constructionists we have here adhere to a more Stalinist line in that they seem to be saying "anything not specifically permitted, is prohibited'! That's NOT what the Fouinders intended. They gave us a short document, open to interpretation, so that it could grow with the country.

Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Certainly, Jefferson is correct, however there is a line which cannot be crossed.

If the Constitution give Congress the power to provide for all manner of defense as they knew at the time of writing the Constitution, then they did not mean to exclude the Air Force from it simply because it was not specifically named. (In fact, the Air Force was originally part of the Army and could have remained so if it were a Constitutional impediment.

However, when new functions are created out of whole cloth, like The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Then, authority in the Constitution needs to be created for it.

So, progress need not be stifled nor slowed down. But, Congress must have been granted the authority to legislate on items similar. Congress was granted the ability to legislate in interstate commerce, creating port and other transportation needs. Surely, that means they have the ability to legislate concerning airports and air transportation. And the same for space ports and space transportation.

This is not a hard concept to grasp. I suspect people are being very artificial here.

I'm not being artificial at all. Some of you have obviously studied it a lot. But it still seems like its all up to interpretation. People study these things all the time, earn degrees and they still cant agree. But that is what happens when people romantisize the dead. IMO

 

[RDD_1210]

See the next post. You haven't responded to me or Madison except to say "read Hamilton"

I said even the founding fathers disagreed on major issues. Hence, you can't cite one of them and act like that's the final word. I'm not claiming Hamiltons is the authority or anyone else should be, but you want us to think the debate is over because of what Madison said. That's not how it works.

No you ******* trolling moron... The debate is over because we are TRILLIONS in debt trying to pay for all the General Welfare wonder programs that seem to collapse on themselves...

Sure, absolutely… military has some big waste and I agree with that. Here is the BIG difference. I, and many others are willing to cut massive military spending while you are not willing to cut ANY General Welfare spending. Instead you only want to argue we cut military while DUN DUN DUN! You support Democrats who expand military spending ******* LOLZ!

Shocking, a liberal who is everything the hate haha.

LOL, angry much?

I have never once said we shouldn't cut Entitlement spending. Keep putting words in my mouth though. I want cuts across the board, but not cut out everything. I don't have the all or nothing mentality. I realize there is value in the military just as there is value in some entitlement programs.

Get a ******* grip.

 

[gekaap]

If the Constitution give Congress the power to provide for all manner of defense as they knew at the time of writing the Constitution, then they did not mean to exclude the Air Force from it simply because it was not specifically named. (In fact, the Air Force was originally part of the Army and could have remained so if it were a Constitutional impediment.

However, when new functions are created out of whole cloth, like The Department of Housing and Urban Development. Then, authority in the Constitution needs to be created for it.

So, progress need not be stifled nor slowed down. But, Congress must have been granted the authority to legislate on items similar. Congress was granted the ability to legislate in interstate commerce, creating port and other transportation needs. Surely, that means they have the ability to legislate concerning airports and air transportation. And the same for space ports and space transportation.

This is not a hard concept to grasp. I suspect people are being very artificial here.

All of this boils down to saying that we must adhere to the gospel according to you. We should ignore the judicial branch of the government, being constitutionally charged with the power to interpret the law, when they have upheld the constitutional validity of all the things you're complaining about. We should, instead, follow you as our Lord and Savior.

 

[RDD_1210]

Madison wrote it (this clause). Quit deflecting.

I'm familiar with Madison's Federalist 41 having quoted it here a thousand times. I'll check out Hamilton and get back to you. If it's in the Federalist Papers I've read it but it's been a long time. I'll get back to you.

Unfortunately for Madison, he's not the authority on the matter. The constitution puts authority to interpret the law into the courts. So many ultra conservatives love to say "Oh, this is unconstitutional" yet constantly ignore when the courts have consistently held otherwise.

And right about the time the country started using Hamilton’s views the country has been bankrupt and barrowing to stay afloat. Now the time is coming when that debt is so far beyond sustainable we might as well not own our own country. Good job Hamilton!

Why do you hate our founding fathers? Are you communist/socialist/marxist/nazi?

 

[BlindBoo]

Gonna need a trawler to reel in all them red herrings.

I think Flopper is right on, on this one. When the country was founded it was mostly a collection of small farming communities spread out over long distances. The country has changed dramatically and so has the way we govern.

I think it's time for a new constitution. (Like that would ever fly!)

We're damned lucky we had a collection of geniuses at the time of our founding. Looking a Capitol Hill right now, I'm not sure I can pick out enough geniuses to fill a phone booth let alone a meeting hall and you want to give them the power to rewrite how you're governed? Are you insane?

I said nothing about who I think should to be in charge of writing a new Constitution. I would not trust any elected official from either major party.