The U.S. Constitution

[PoliticalChic]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

Unfortunately, the Constitution is no longer in effect, and has not been since the tenure of the 32nd President.


Theodore J. Lowi, in "The End of Liberalism," about what he calls the Second Republic,

"The Roosevelt Revolution established that in our democracy there can be no limit to governmental power. Prior to this, it was the character of the United States that government was limited to a specific set of activities; under Roosevelt, this was discarded as too confining."

 

[eflatminor]

1. Of course that's interpretive, because it's the Court making an interpretation of what they believe the enumerated powers to be.

Only a progressive judge would need to "interpret" the enumerated powers. They could not be more clear. These judges are looking to clauses to find ways to expand government power...exactly the opposite of the original intent.

2. It didn't need "shoehorn[ing]". The law is clearly a valid use of the commerce power, but five of the justices opposed the law for political reasons and therefore cooked up a BS excuse as to why it's not. There is not logically consistent way to square Scalia's dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius and his concurrence in Raich.

Political reasons my ass. The non-progressive judges simply looked at the enumerated powers and saw nothing related to healthcare. Pretty simple.

3. Oh please. For all the "promise" of the "federalism revolution", the cases coming out of it have effectively said Congress's use of the commerce clause is limited by the use of magic words.

The commerce clause has been horrible abused by those seeking to expand central power. The clause was about making trade between states regular, such as preventing tariffs, etc. It was never about "regulation" and certainly never about expanding the federal government to anything close to what we have today.

 

[regent]

Too bad the framers did not put in a clause in the Constitution that gave the Court the power to interpret the Constitution. A short clause would have done it, but nothing. Did the Court then make law in Marbury?

That's like saying too bad the laws don't allow us to launder money...

The entire point of the Constitution was to prevent power in the hands of one or a small group. Giving anyone the power to interpret it would have been catastrophic.

The Constitution is set in stone and the only way it changes is through the amendment process.

So the conservative Marshall Court, simply took the power to interpret.

 

[Foxfyre]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

Unfortunately, the Constitution is no longer in effect, and has not been since the tenure of the 32nd President.


Theodore J. Lowi, in "The End of Liberalism," about what he calls the Second Republic,

"The Roosevelt Revolution established that in our democracy there can be no limit to governmental power. Prior to this, it was the character of the United States that government was limited to a specific set of activities; under Roosevelt, this was discarded as too confining."

It is true that Teddy Roosevelt was the first to interpret the Constitution as allowing government to do anything that was not expressly prohibited. Most Presidents that followed Roosevelt and the judges they have appointed have continued to push that envelope further and further to give the federal government more and more power at the expense of the rights of the people. This turned the Founders' intent on its head that the government would do only what the Constitution expressly allowed it to do. They were so committed to that concept that it did not occur to them that subsequent generations could interpret it differently.

In my opinion, our most pressing concern must be to return the Constitution to something much closer to the Founders' intent and it may require a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

 

[Polk]

1. Of course that's interpretive, because it's the Court making an interpretation of what they believe the enumerated powers to be.

Only a progressive judge would need to "interpret" the enumerated powers. They could not be more clear. These judges are looking to clauses to find ways to expand government power...exactly the opposite of the original intent.

"They could not be more clear"? Really? Using that logic, lets disband the air force. After all, no mention of it in the Constitution.

2. It didn't need "shoehorn[ing]". The law is clearly a valid use of the commerce power, but five of the justices opposed the law for political reasons and therefore cooked up a BS excuse as to why it's not. There is not logically consistent way to square Scalia's dissent in NFIB v. Sebelius and his concurrence in Raich.

Political reasons my ass. The non-progressive judges simply looked at the enumerated powers and saw nothing related to healthcare. Pretty simple.

The market for health care is not commercial?

3. Oh please. For all the "promise" of the "federalism revolution", the cases coming out of it have effectively said Congress's use of the commerce clause is limited by the use of magic words.

The commerce clause has been horrible abused by those seeking to expand central power. The clause was about making trade between states regular, such as preventing tariffs, etc. It was never about "regulation" and certainly never about expanding the federal government to anything close to what we have today.

That's your interpretation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

Unfortunately, the Constitution is no longer in effect, and has not been since the tenure of the 32nd President.


Theodore J. Lowi, in "The End of Liberalism," about what he calls the Second Republic,

"The Roosevelt Revolution established that in our democracy there can be no limit to governmental power. Prior to this, it was the character of the United States that government was limited to a specific set of activities; under Roosevelt, this was discarded as too confining."

It is true that Teddy Roosevelt was the first to interpret the Constitution as allowing government to do anything that was not expressly prohibited. Most Presidents that followed Roosevelt and the judges they have appointed have continued to push that envelope further and further to give the federal government more and more power at the expense of the rights of the people. This turned the Founders' intent on its head that the government would do only what the Constitution expressly allowed it to do. They were so committed to that concept that it did not occur to them that subsequent generations could interpret it differently.

In my opinion, our most pressing concern must be to return the Constitution to something much closer to the Founders' intent and it may require a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

Foxy....

....it's too late.

Lowi (Ibid) actually wrote the unwritten constitution of the Second Republic...here's part:



PREAMBLE. There ought to be a national presence in every aspect of the lives of American citizens. National power is no longer a necessary evil; it is a positive virtue.



Article II. The separation of powers to the contrary notwithstanding, the center of this national government is the presidency. Said office is authorized to use any powers, real or imagined, to set our nation to rights making any rules or regulations the president deems appropriate; the president may delegate this authority to any other official or agency. The right to make all such rules and regulations is based on the assumption in this constitution that the office of the presidency embodies the will of the real majority of the American nation.


Thank you Emperor Franklin the First...

 

[eflatminor]

In my opinion, our most pressing concern must be to return the Constitution to something much closer to the Founders' intent and it may require a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

 

[eflatminor]

1. Of course that's interpretive, because it's the Court making an interpretation of what they believe the enumerated powers to be.

Only a progressive judge would need to "interpret" the enumerated powers. They could not be more clear. These judges are looking to clauses to find ways to expand government power...exactly the opposite of the original intent.

"They could not be more clear"? Really? Using that logic, lets disband the air force. After all, no mention of it in the Constitution.



The market for health care is not commercial?

3. Oh please. For all the "promise" of the "federalism revolution", the cases coming out of it have effectively said Congress's use of the commerce clause is limited by the use of magic words.

The commerce clause has been horrible abused by those seeking to expand central power. The clause was about making trade between states regular, such as preventing tariffs, etc. It was never about "regulation" and certainly never about expanding the federal government to anything close to what we have today.

That's your interpretation.

Hey Polk, we get it. You're a Progressive. You like a large, powerful federal government. You clearly cannot understand or appreciate the necessity of limiting government power in order to keep tyranny at bay. You're not alone in that regard, unfortunately.

All the best.

 

[Foxfyre]

Unfortunately, the Constitution is no longer in effect, and has not been since the tenure of the 32nd President.


Theodore J. Lowi, in "The End of Liberalism," about what he calls the Second Republic,

"The Roosevelt Revolution established that in our democracy there can be no limit to governmental power. Prior to this, it was the character of the United States that government was limited to a specific set of activities; under Roosevelt, this was discarded as too confining."

It is true that Teddy Roosevelt was the first to interpret the Constitution as allowing government to do anything that was not expressly prohibited. Most Presidents that followed Roosevelt and the judges they have appointed have continued to push that envelope further and further to give the federal government more and more power at the expense of the rights of the people. This turned the Founders' intent on its head that the government would do only what the Constitution expressly allowed it to do. They were so committed to that concept that it did not occur to them that subsequent generations could interpret it differently.

In my opinion, our most pressing concern must be to return the Constitution to something much closer to the Founders' intent and it may require a Constitutional Amendment to do that.

Foxy....

....it's too late.

Lowi (Ibid) actually wrote the unwritten constitution of the Second Republic...here's part:



PREAMBLE. There ought to be a national presence in every aspect of the lives of American citizens. National power is no longer a necessary evil; it is a positive virtue.



Article II. The separation of powers to the contrary notwithstanding, the center of this national government is the presidency. Said office is authorized to use any powers, real or imagined, to set our nation to rights making any rules or regulations the president deems appropriate; the president may delegate this authority to any other official or agency. The right to make all such rules and regulations is based on the assumption in this constitution that the office of the presidency embodies the will of the real majority of the American nation.


Thank you Emperor Franklin the First...

Well I keep that 'eternal optimist' designation under my screen name for a reason. I would like to think that good can triumph over and it is never hopeless so long as there are at least some of us willing to reteach the blessings of liberty to those generations coming up. It indeed may be too late for those who drank the Kool-ade but Rasmussen advises us that about two thirds of voters think government is too big and does too much. So I don't think it is hopeless if we can just muster the backbone to do what has to be done.

 

[Foxfyre]

A gentle reminder that this is the CDZ folks.

Expressing opinions about the thread topic is good. Most especially if you agree with me. (Just kidding. All opinion sare invited.) But keep the opinions focused on the topic and not each other or other members.

 

[rightwinger]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

Unfortunately, the Constitution is no longer in effect, and has not been since the tenure of the 32nd President.


Theodore J. Lowi, in "The End of Liberalism," about what he calls the Second Republic,

"The Roosevelt Revolution established that in our democracy there can be no limit to governmental power. Prior to this, it was the character of the United States that government was limited to a specific set of activities; under Roosevelt, this was discarded as too confining."

Our society today offers more freedom than at any time in history

The only ones complaining about a loss of freedom is from those who could formerly deny it to others

 

[regent]

Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist Papers argue for more latitude in the interpreting the Constitution and Jefferson, Mr. Strict Construction himself, finds he must use loose construction in buying Louisiana. History is riddled with all three branches, and both conservatives and liberals, using loose construction of the constitution during their terms in office. For the most loosest interpretation of the constitution I nominate Marbury v. Madison by the conservative Marshall Court.

 

[eflatminor]

Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist Papers argue for more latitude in the interpreting the Constitution and Jefferson, Mr. Strict Construction himself, finds he must use loose construction in buying Louisiana. History is riddled with all three branches, and both conservatives and liberals, using loose construction of the constitution during their terms in office.

True. Abuse of our limited government concept has been going on since the beginning. Each decade brings more growth of government, less freedom and more debt. Time for a reset.

For the most loosest interpretation of the constitution I nominate Marbury v. Madison by the conservative Marshall Court.

Wickard v. Filburn, in my opinion.

 

[eflatminor]

Our society today offers more freedom than at any time in history

Public school "education"

 

[Foxfyre]

*225 years ago today, on September 17, 1787, thirty-nine of our Founding Fathers signed the United States Constitution with the hope of providing all citizens the right to life, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Seventeen months later, it would be fully ratified and became the supreme law of the land. It created the most free, most prosperous, most productive, most creative, most innovative, most generous nation the world has ever known.

In my opinion, somewhere along the way, I think many, maybe most, Americans have lost sight of what the Founders intended to accomplish with that amazing document. And if America is to be restored to its former greatness, that intent must be relearned and understood again.

In a nutshell:

1. The Constitution was intended to recognize and protect our unlienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

2. The Constitution was intended to provide a system within which the various states could function as one united nation and to regulate those processes and resources that the states would of necessity share.

3. The Constitution was intended to allow the states to organize and implement their own social contract and laws to enforce it without interference from the federal government so long as one state did not interfere with another.

This is my opinion. Do you have a different point of view?

Unfortunately, the Constitution is no longer in effect, and has not been since the tenure of the 32nd President.


Theodore J. Lowi, in "The End of Liberalism," about what he calls the Second Republic,

"The Roosevelt Revolution established that in our democracy there can be no limit to governmental power. Prior to this, it was the character of the United States that government was limited to a specific set of activities; under Roosevelt, this was discarded as too confining."

Our society today offers more freedom than at any time in history

The only ones complaining about a loss of freedom is from those who could formerly deny it to others

A tyranny of political correctness is not freedom. A tyranny of those who get or hope to get free things at the expense of others is not freedom. A government that runs up our mutual debt to 16 trillion dollars for no better reason than it can increase the power, prestige, influenvce, and personal fortunes of those in government by doing so is not freedom. The old saw that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have is quite relevant. But such a government does not provide freedom.

 

[rightwinger]

Our society today offers more freedom than at any time in history

Public school "education"

Great equalizer in our society

Can you imagine the servants kids going to the same school as the masters kids?

It is what made our country great

 

[rightwinger]

Unfortunately, the Constitution is no longer in effect, and has not been since the tenure of the 32nd President.


Theodore J. Lowi, in "The End of Liberalism," about what he calls the Second Republic,

"The Roosevelt Revolution established that in our democracy there can be no limit to governmental power. Prior to this, it was the character of the United States that government was limited to a specific set of activities; under Roosevelt, this was discarded as too confining."

Our society today offers more freedom than at any time in history

The only ones complaining about a loss of freedom is from those who could formerly deny it to others

A tyranny of political correctness is not freedom. A tyranny of those who get or hope to get free things at the expense of others is not freedom. A government that runs up our mutual debt to 16 trillion dollars for no better reason than it can increase the power, prestige, influenvce, and personal fortunes of those in government by doing so is not freedom. The old saw that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have is quite relevant. But such a government does not provide freedom.

I grew up at a time when girls were restricted to what jobs they could aspire to. Teacher, nurse, secretary, beautician......take your pick girls

Our society is more open, opportunities are open to everyone, there is less pigeonholing based on race, religion, sex and nationality

We have never seen more freedom

 

[Polk]

Only a progressive judge would need to "interpret" the enumerated powers. They could not be more clear. These judges are looking to clauses to find ways to expand government power...exactly the opposite of the original intent.

"They could not be more clear"? Really? Using that logic, lets disband the air force. After all, no mention of it in the Constitution.



The market for health care is not commercial?

The commerce clause has been horrible abused by those seeking to expand central power. The clause was about making trade between states regular, such as preventing tariffs, etc. It was never about "regulation" and certainly never about expanding the federal government to anything close to what we have today.

That's your interpretation.

Hey Polk, we get it. You're a Progressive. You like a large, powerful federal government. You clearly cannot understand or appreciate the necessity of limiting government power in order to keep tyranny at bay. You're not alone in that regard, unfortunately.

All the best.

Why not address the actual topic instead of insulting other people's intelligence?

 

[eflatminor]

"They could not be more clear"? Really? Using that logic, lets disband the air force. After all, no mention of it in the Constitution.



The market for health care is not commercial?



That's your interpretation.

Hey Polk, we get it. You're a Progressive. You like a large, powerful federal government. You clearly cannot understand or appreciate the necessity of limiting government power in order to keep tyranny at bay. You're not alone in that regard, unfortunately.

All the best.

Why not address the actual topic instead of insulting other people's intelligence?

That would require an intelligent person...or at least someone open minded enough to consider thinking for themselves.

All the best

 

[eflatminor]

Our society today offers more freedom than at any time in history

Public school "education"

Great equalizer in our society

Yep...keeping all our kids equally ignorant.

For example, Chicago: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/248258-chicago-teachers-back-to-work-but-can-they-actually-teach.html