Where in the Constitution?

MadChemist

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
292
Points
140
With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?

There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-


Where Are Lockdowns in the Constitution?
Providing for the General welfare must cover any given contingency; it should require a general, top down solution.
Still demonstrating your ignorance on the General Welfare Clause I see.
In what way? You need a valid argument to be taken seriously not just your opinion. I could just as easily state right wingers have only ignorance and fallacy not any valid arguments or understanding.
I've already provided Madison's words on the subject.

I am not arguing it any further.
 

Agit8r

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2010
Messages
11,839
Reaction score
2,032
Points
245
Somehow the Vaccine Act of 1813 was enacted to combat smallpox. The lack of specific enumeration of that power didn't seem to be a problem then.
Does not make it right.
Why wouldn't it be right? Remember that the "originalist" argument was invented by Madison. And he was president then. A reminder that it was only ever a theoretical legal argument to begin with.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,664
Reaction score
2,768
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?

There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-


Where Are Lockdowns in the Constitution?
Providing for the General welfare must cover any given contingency; it should require a general, top down solution.
Still demonstrating your ignorance on the General Welfare Clause I see.
In what way? You need a valid argument to be taken seriously not just your opinion. I could just as easily state right wingers have only ignorance and fallacy not any valid arguments or understanding.
I've already provided Madison's words on the subject.

I am not arguing it any further.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
 

MadChemist

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
292
Points
140
With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?

There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-


Where Are Lockdowns in the Constitution?
Providing for the General welfare must cover any given contingency; it should require a general, top down solution.
Still demonstrating your ignorance on the General Welfare Clause I see.
In what way? You need a valid argument to be taken seriously not just your opinion. I could just as easily state right wingers have only ignorance and fallacy not any valid arguments or understanding.
That was directed at someone else.

The argument regarding the General Welfare Clause has gone on for decades.

I have supplied support for my position (which is the position of others in this thread).

Do we need to review that.

To your point, you could say that and you'd be correct if there were no arguments. And while I lean right, I am all to well aware of the lack of good arguments coming from the right on several topics and issues. But in this case, I've already done it. If you'd like to review that we can start another thread and discuss.

All danielpalos does is look at what is presented (like writings from Madison) and simply say....this is what the two words mean when put together. That's a great argument. :doubt::doubt:
 

MadChemist

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
1,012
Reaction score
292
Points
140
Somehow the Vaccine Act of 1813 was enacted to combat smallpox. The lack of specific enumeration of that power didn't seem to be a problem then.
Does not make it right.
Why wouldn't it be right? Remember that the "originalist" argument was invented by Madison. And he was president then. A reminder that it was only ever a theoretical legal argument to begin with.
Madison was quite clear in his arguments to sell the constitution in the Federalist Papers.

The inclusion of a Bill of Rights at the insistence of the skeptics (which included the 10th amendment) is telling with regards to the scope of the constitution.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,664
Reaction score
2,768
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?

There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-


Where Are Lockdowns in the Constitution?
Providing for the General welfare must cover any given contingency; it should require a general, top down solution.
Still demonstrating your ignorance on the General Welfare Clause I see.
In what way? You need a valid argument to be taken seriously not just your opinion. I could just as easily state right wingers have only ignorance and fallacy not any valid arguments or understanding.
That was directed at someone else.

The argument regarding the General Welfare Clause has gone on for decades.

I have supplied support for my position (which is the position of others in this thread).

Do we need to review that.

To your point, you could say that and you'd be correct if there were no arguments. And while I lean right, I am all to well aware of the lack of good arguments coming from the right on several topics and issues. But in this case, I've already done it. If you'd like to review that we can start another thread and discuss.

All danielpalos does is look at what is presented (like writings from Madison) and simply say....this is what the two words mean when put together. That's a great argument. :doubt::doubt:
What arguments are you referring to?

Yes, I actually understand the meaning the words involved, unlike the right wing.

There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,664
Reaction score
2,768
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Somehow the Vaccine Act of 1813 was enacted to combat smallpox. The lack of specific enumeration of that power didn't seem to be a problem then.
Does not make it right.
Why wouldn't it be right? Remember that the "originalist" argument was invented by Madison. And he was president then. A reminder that it was only ever a theoretical legal argument to begin with.
Madison was quite clear in his arguments to sell the constitution in the Federalist Papers.

The inclusion of a Bill of Rights at the insistence of the skeptics (which included the 10th amendment) is telling with regards to the scope of the constitution.
This is express law, you have no better argument:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District....
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,751
Reaction score
4,369
Points
260
Location
Texas
This is express law, you have no better argument:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District....
That depends, entirely, on perspective- from a moral perspective, it's, well, immoral- if it's about Liberty, it's equally immoral, and could be considered illegal- legal and moral are rarely acquainted- legislation, restricts and favors- that isn't the role of gov't- the role of the fed gov't is outlined in the constitution, and reading the anti-federalist explains why, (fear of tyranny and oppression being "legislated")- the role of the fed gov't is to ensure equal footing for all participating in commerce- hence "District" representatives to ensure one (District) didn't have a "legislated" advantage over another-
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,664
Reaction score
2,768
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
This is express law, you have no better argument:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District....
That depends, entirely, on perspective- from a moral perspective, it's, well, immoral- if it's about Liberty, it's equally immoral, and could be considered illegal- legal and moral are rarely acquainted- legislation, restricts and favors- that isn't the role of gov't- the role of the fed gov't is outlined in the constitution, and reading the anti-federalist explains why, (fear of tyranny and oppression being "legislated")- the role of the fed gov't is to ensure equal footing for all participating in commerce- hence "District" representatives to ensure one (District) didn't have a "legislated" advantage over another-
No, it doesn't. It only depends on the restrictions in the rest of our federal Constitution.
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,751
Reaction score
4,369
Points
260
Location
Texas
No, it doesn't. It only depends on the restrictions in the rest of our federal Constitution.
Like I've said before- your opinion- and as I just said, perspective- both are subjective, which means, having an objective without being objective- to "exercise" objective one has to displace subjective- to displace subjective one has to be open to knowledge, which is merely other "opinions", many times based on physical evidence, not imaginary wants (opinions)- opinions legislated are immoral, in the context of the constitution- the restrictions ARE THE constitution- the absolutes are the Bill of Rights with but one (1) caveat, in the 4th amendment, which presents *ambiguity* - the ONLY ambiguous wording in the document-
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,664
Reaction score
2,768
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
No, it doesn't. It only depends on the restrictions in the rest of our federal Constitution.
Like I've said before- your opinion- and as I just said, perspective- both are subjective, which means, having an objective without being objective- to "exercise" objective one has to displace subjective- to displace subjective one has to be open to knowledge, which is merely other "opinions", many times based on physical evidence, not imaginary wants (opinions)- opinions legislated are immoral, in the context of the constitution- the restrictions ARE THE constitution- the absolutes are the Bill of Rights with but one (1) caveat, in the 4th amendment, which presents *ambiguity* - the ONLY ambiguous wording in the document-
The express law is clear.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,751
Reaction score
4,369
Points
260
Location
Texas
The express law is clear.
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District
IDGAF- read what I said and respond accordingly- your knee jerks are getting old-
 
OP
Gdjjr

Gdjjr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
8,751
Reaction score
4,369
Points
260
Location
Texas
You are simply wrong. Try your argument in front of a judge.
My opinion of people who wear black dresses in public is well known-and they are no smarter than you- and you, ain't near as smart as you feel you are-
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,664
Reaction score
2,768
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
You are simply wrong. Try your argument in front of a judge.
My opinion of people who wear black dresses in public is well known-and they are no smarter than you- and you, ain't near as smart as you feel you are-
You are welcome to your opinion. Exercising the judicial power of the United States is in Article 3.
 

Englewood

Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
26
Reaction score
11
Points
11
If you use the Constitution as your evidence one should make sure the Court has not already ruled on the topic. If the Court has ruled on that topic their ruling is case law and is the Constitution. I understand that some law schools only teach case Law.
 

Bob Blaylock

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
14,217
Reaction score
6,155
Points
400
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
If you use the Constitution as your evidence one should make sure the Court has not already ruled on the topic. If the Court has ruled on that topic their ruling is case law and is the Constitution. I understand that some law schools only teach case Law.
The Constitution says what it says, regardless of how some court may twist, corrupt, or “interpret” it.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
8,822
Reaction score
1,879
Points
290
Location
GNO
With some people advising Joe Biden to adopt a nationwide lockdown when he assumes the presidency, this would be a good time to ask an important question: Where in the Constitution does it authorize the federal government to impose a nationwide lockdown? For that matter, where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to combat pandemics? Indeed, where in the Constitution is the federal government authorized to do anything with respect to healthcare, including providing people with Medicare and Medicaid?

There are a lot of questions that need answering and Empty Suits held accountable for- but this is the most blatantly egregious currently-


Where Are Lockdowns in the Constitution?
Providing for the General welfare must cover any given contingency; it should require a general, top down solution.
Promote the general welfare, not provide for it..
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top