The Right Way To Read The Constitution

[pegwinn]

How do you choose to interpret the Constitution?

I'm not looking for other peoples (pundits, judges, famous folks) opinions here. I am more interested in your own personal philosophy and how you come by it. We all read quotes daily, and argue frequently over the words and clauses. We even tell each other that we are blessed idiots for not following this or that train of thought. Well, tis time for people to see if their way of doing it is based on anything ranging from brutal facts to random bursts of stupid.

I was going to do a poll and list options like "original intent" or "evolving." In my opinion, those options would be as limited as a church poll would be to a Greek Orthodox Heathen Jue. So, if you are a combination of evolving Socratic (whatever that means), and limited parsing; lay it down, claim it, and explain it.

This'll go on one of two ways (which now guarantees a third way will appear). We will either take the time to explain our world view, or we will simply devolve into pointing fingers, giggling, and launching insults in the finest message board traditions.

For me, my method is the Literal Word. I like to think that my philosophy is based on pretty hard logic. You be the judge.

First: The Constitution was not written by one man. It was written by an overlapping series of committees. Each person in the committee had his original intent. So, if the committee was five people, there were five intents to be reconciled. History tells us that the committees did not simply show up and write words willy nilly. Instead, each word was weighed and argued (loudly and into the night) until all the intents were represented by the written words. So, we cannot use a document from John Adams to explain a clause without realizing that his was but ONE esteemed opinion or intent. That much emphasis on wording tells me that the literal words are the intent of the founders (plural).

Second: To interpret the Constitution other than literally causes you to cite other documents to be as/more authoritative than the Constitution itself. Take the Wall of Separation as an example. It appears nowhere in the document. And yet, because of interpretations, the letter written to the Danbury Baptists has been accepted as canon. By that acceptance, we place the letter on par with the supreme law of the land. I cannot do that. Thus, I subscribe literally to its words to avoid having to have a library of scholarly treatise and esoteric translations.

Third: The entire body of regulation and law that I have ever encountered is based on the literal word. You don't stroll into court and declare that the intent of the speed limit was to create safe highways. I tried that. The judge countered that the intent was that I not travel over 55 mph. He assured me that if traveling at 64 was ok on that stretch, the signs would have pointed the way. Additionally, I've dealt with regulations in the service and with the Code of Federal Regulations. Each was very specific. In fact, violations noted by the IG or EPA always quoted the reg "chapter and verse" to ensure I knew just how fouled up I was.

Finally; The Constitution has a specific method of change when such is needed. Because the founders are dead, you can never change their intent. If the Constitution evolves on its' own with time, then no mechanism for change is needed. It isn't logical that a method to change the literal word is included if that weren't the intended way to read the document.

Well, that was reasonably short and sweet. And there are only four points for someone to hack away at. What's your take?

[LuvRPgrl]

How do you choose to interpret the Constitution?

I'm not looking for other peoples (pundits, judges, famous folks) opinions here. I am more interested in your own personal philosophy and how you come by it. We all read quotes daily, and argue frequently over the words and clauses. We even tell each other that we are blessed idiots for not following this or that train of thought. Well, tis time for people to see if their way of doing it is based on anything ranging from brutal facts to random bursts of stupid.

I was going to do a poll and list options like "original intent" or "evolving." In my opinion, those options would be as limited as a church poll would be to a Greek Orthodox Heathen Jue. So, if you are a combination of evolving Socratic (whatever that means), and limited parsing; lay it down, claim it, and explain it.

This'll go on one of two ways (which now guarantees a third way will appear). We will either take the time to explain our world view, or we will simply devolve into pointing fingers, giggling, and launching insults in the finest message board traditions.

For me, my method is the Literal Word. I like to think that my philosophy is based on pretty hard logic. You be the judge.

First: The Constitution was not written by one man. It was written by an overlapping series of committees. Each person in the committee had his original intent. So, if the committee was five people, there were five intents to be reconciled. History tells us that the committees did not simply show up and write words willy nilly. Instead, each word was weighed and argued (loudly and into the night) until all the intents were represented by the written words. So, we cannot use a document from John Adams to explain a clause without realizing that his was but ONE esteemed opinion or intent. That much emphasis on wording tells me that the literal words are the intent of the founders (plural).

Second: To interpret the Constitution other than literally causes you to cite other documents to be as/more authoritative than the Constitution itself. Take the Wall of Separation as an example. It appears nowhere in the document. And yet, because of interpretations, the letter written to the Danbury Baptists has been accepted as canon. By that acceptance, we place the letter on par with the supreme law of the land. I cannot do that. Thus, I subscribe literally to its words to avoid having to have a library of scholarly treatise and esoteric translations.

Third: The entire body of regulation and law that I have ever encountered is based on the literal word. You don't stroll into court and declare that the intent of the speed limit was to create safe highways. I tried that. The judge countered that the intent was that I not travel over 55 mph. He assured me that if traveling at 64 was ok on that stretch, the signs would have pointed the way. Additionally, I've dealt with regulations in the service and with the Code of Federal Regulations. Each was very specific. In fact, violations noted by the IG or EPA always quoted the reg "chapter and verse" to ensure I knew just how fouled up I was.

Finally; The Constitution has a specific method of change when such is needed. Because the founders are dead, you can never change their intent. If the Constitution evolves on its' own with time, then no mechanism for change is needed. It isn't logical that a method to change the literal word is included if that weren't the intended way to read the document.

Well, that was reasonably short and sweet. And there are only four points for someone to hack away at. What's your take?

People should be able to opt out on paying taxes and refuse govt services.

[logroller]

People should be able to opt out on paying taxes and refuse govt services.

Not sure what that has do with the pegwinn's literal translation argument, but not paying taxes and refusing govt services is easily accomplished by expatriation and relinquishing your citizenship.

[logroller]

How do you choose to interpret the Constitution?

I'm not looking for other peoples (pundits, judges, famous folks) opinions here. I am more interested in your own personal philosophy and how you come by it. We all read quotes daily, and argue frequently over the words and clauses. We even tell each other that we are blessed idiots for not following this or that train of thought. Well, tis time for people to see if their way of doing it is based on anything ranging from brutal facts to random bursts of stupid.

I was going to do a poll and list options like "original intent" or "evolving." In my opinion, those options would be as limited as a church poll would be to a Greek Orthodox Heathen Jue. So, if you are a combination of evolving Socratic (whatever that means), and limited parsing; lay it down, claim it, and explain it.

This'll go on one of two ways (which now guarantees a third way will appear). We will either take the time to explain our world view, or we will simply devolve into pointing fingers, giggling, and launching insults in the finest message board traditions.

For me, my method is the Literal Word. I like to think that my philosophy is based on pretty hard logic. You be the judge.

First: The Constitution was not written by one man. It was written by an overlapping series of committees. Each person in the committee had his original intent. So, if the committee was five people, there were five intents to be reconciled. History tells us that the committees did not simply show up and write words willy nilly. Instead, each word was weighed and argued (loudly and into the night) until all the intents were represented by the written words. So, we cannot use a document from John Adams to explain a clause without realizing that his was but ONE esteemed opinion or intent. That much emphasis on wording tells me that the literal words are the intent of the founders (plural).

Second: To interpret the Constitution other than literally causes you to cite other documents to be as/more authoritative than the Constitution itself. Take the Wall of Separation as an example. It appears nowhere in the document. And yet, because of interpretations, the letter written to the Danbury Baptists has been accepted as canon. By that acceptance, we place the letter on par with the supreme law of the land. I cannot do that. Thus, I subscribe literally to its words to avoid having to have a library of scholarly treatise and esoteric translations.

Third: The entire body of regulation and law that I have ever encountered is based on the literal word. You don't stroll into court and declare that the intent of the speed limit was to create safe highways. I tried that. The judge countered that the intent was that I not travel over 55 mph. He assured me that if traveling at 64 was ok on that stretch, the signs would have pointed the way. Additionally, I've dealt with regulations in the service and with the Code of Federal Regulations. Each was very specific. In fact, violations noted by the IG or EPA always quoted the reg "chapter and verse" to ensure I knew just how fouled up I was.

Finally; The Constitution has a specific method of change when such is needed. Because the founders are dead, you can never change their intent. If the Constitution evolves on its' own with time, then no mechanism for change is needed. It isn't logical that a method to change the literal word is included if that weren't the intended way to read the document.

Well, that was reasonably short and sweet. And there are only four points for someone to hack away at. What's your take?


Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Alright. Let me see how this would apply. Take 'welfare', literally meaning 'health, happiness and well-being'. So if the People are, in general, overweight, have high cholesterol etc, as evidenced by a high incidence of heart attacks and diabetes; then We, generally speaking, are not healthy. Thus, Congress is empowered to make laws to change this, and have passed laws which, utilizing tax penalties, will increase the number of people who will have access to healthcare and are thus 'providing for the general welfare.' Case closed?

[revelarts]

t



...the Constitution was not written by one man. It was written by an overlapping series of committees. Each person in the committee had his original intent. So, if the committee was five people, there were five intents to be reconciled. History tells us that the committees did not simply show up and write words willy nilly. Instead, each word was weighed and argued (loudly and into the night) until all the intents were represented by the written words. So, we cannot use a document from John Adams to explain a clause without realizing that his was but ONE esteemed opinion or intent. That much emphasis on wording tells me that the literal words are the intent of the founders (plural).

It makes no sense to me that people would approach it any other way. Any other way would mean , as you point out, that other items are more authoritative or that none of the words of the original are really binding, even as a guide. SO that we like children read the rules of the parents and make them mean as close to what we want so we can do what we want to do anywho. it's dishonest.

Using outside docs to help clarify the intent is important however, there are some notes taken from the convention, and letters, and diaries which can help but are not to trump the words of the constitution. However the public debate over the constitution found in the federalist and anti federalist papers cover many of the possible pro and con intents of the constitution so that those following who would bring along new more novel ideas "to light" that they've discovered have to fly in the face of that broad discussion on intent found in those docs and what appears in the fairly strait forwardly written constitution. Outlining ideas should be highly suspect if not rejected outright and if considered necessary then approached as amendment.

A lot of the the evolving Constitution stuff is just sophistry or at best self deceptive IMO.

[revelarts]

Alright. Let me see how this would apply. Take 'welfare', literally meaning 'health, happiness and well-being'. So if the People are, in general, overweight, have high cholesterol etc, as evidenced by a high incidence of heart attacks and diabetes; then We, generally speaking, are not healthy. Thus, Congress is empowered to make laws to change this, and have passed laws which, utilizing tax penalties, will increase the number of people who will have access to healthcare and are thus 'providing for the general welfare.' Case closed?
this is what some of the anti federalist papers stated.
they thought this language was far to broad and gave the federal gov't nearly unlimited powers.
the federalist papers poo pooped that interpretation saying that the state legislatures and the general make up of the country, and truly representative leadership would not allow for that kind of interpretation or use. That the broad use of the certain general terms was rediculous.


But I think the Anti federalist had a point and the evloving side of the debate have run through that hole.

...The powers given by this article (8) are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution all powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, is a power very comprehensive and definite,...



...The design of the constitution is expressed in the preamble, to be, “in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity.” These are the ends this government is to accomplish, and for which it is invested with certain powers; among these is the power “to make all laws which are necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” It is a rule in construing a law to consider the objects the legislature had in view in passing it, and to give it such an explanation as to promote their intention. The same rule will apply in explaining a constitution. The great objects then are declared in this preamble in general and indefinite terms to be to provide for the common welfare, and an express power being vested in the legislature to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the general government. The inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion. No terms can be found more indefinite than these, and it is obvious, that the legislature alone must judge what laws are proper and necessary for the purpose. It may be said, that this way of explaining the constitution, is torturing and making it speak what it never intended. This is far from my intention, and I shall not even insist upon this implied power, but join issue with those who say we are to collect the idea of the powers given from the express words of the clauses granting them; and it will not be difficult to show that the same authority is expressly given which is supposed to be implied in the foregoing paragraphs....


The Federalist exact rebuts to the above i and similar statements i can't put my fingers on right now.

[LuvRPgrl]

Alright. Let me see how this would apply. Take 'welfare', literally meaning 'health, happiness and well-being'. So if the People are, in general, overweight, have high cholesterol etc, as evidenced by a high incidence of heart attacks and diabetes; then We, generally speaking, are not healthy. Thus, Congress is empowered to make laws to change this, and have passed laws which, utilizing tax penalties, will increase the number of people who will have access to healthcare and are thus 'providing for the general welfare.' Case closed?

BUT..........it says welfare of the "United States", NOT the people, persons or individuals.
In fact, to me that means welfare as we know it today, is unconstitutional because it selects certain people to aid, whereas I think it should only provide something that virtually ALL Americans can access if they want to.

Those who wish to usurp the Constitution, claim it is a living breathing document, but they dont really believe it even themselves, they are just liars, and think they know whats best for everyone.

[LuvRPgrl]

Not sure what that has do with the pegwinn's literal translation argument, but not paying taxes and refusing govt services is easily accomplished by expatriation and relinquishing your citizenship.

do you mean physcially or legaly?

[Gunny]

How do you choose to interpret the Constitution?

I'm not looking for other peoples (pundits, judges, famous folks) opinions here. I am more interested in your own personal philosophy and how you come by it. We all read quotes daily, and argue frequently over the words and clauses. We even tell each other that we are blessed idiots for not following this or that train of thought. Well, tis time for people to see if their way of doing it is based on anything ranging from brutal facts to random bursts of stupid.

I was going to do a poll and list options like "original intent" or "evolving." In my opinion, those options would be as limited as a church poll would be to a Greek Orthodox Heathen Jue. So, if you are a combination of evolving Socratic (whatever that means), and limited parsing; lay it down, claim it, and explain it.

This'll go on one of two ways (which now guarantees a third way will appear). We will either take the time to explain our world view, or we will simply devolve into pointing fingers, giggling, and launching insults in the finest message board traditions.

For me, my method is the Literal Word. I like to think that my philosophy is based on pretty hard logic. You be the judge.

First: The Constitution was not written by one man. It was written by an overlapping series of committees. Each person in the committee had his original intent. So, if the committee was five people, there were five intents to be reconciled. History tells us that the committees did not simply show up and write words willy nilly. Instead, each word was weighed and argued (loudly and into the night) until all the intents were represented by the written words. So, we cannot use a document from John Adams to explain a clause without realizing that his was but ONE esteemed opinion or intent. That much emphasis on wording tells me that the literal words are the intent of the founders (plural).

Second: To interpret the Constitution other than literally causes you to cite other documents to be as/more authoritative than the Constitution itself. Take the Wall of Separation as an example. It appears nowhere in the document. And yet, because of interpretations, the letter written to the Danbury Baptists has been accepted as canon. By that acceptance, we place the letter on par with the supreme law of the land. I cannot do that. Thus, I subscribe literally to its words to avoid having to have a library of scholarly treatise and esoteric translations.

Third: The entire body of regulation and law that I have ever encountered is based on the literal word. You don't stroll into court and declare that the intent of the speed limit was to create safe highways. I tried that. The judge countered that the intent was that I not travel over 55 mph. He assured me that if traveling at 64 was ok on that stretch, the signs would have pointed the way. Additionally, I've dealt with regulations in the service and with the Code of Federal Regulations. Each was very specific. In fact, violations noted by the IG or EPA always quoted the reg "chapter and verse" to ensure I knew just how fouled up I was.

Finally; The Constitution has a specific method of change when such is needed. Because the founders are dead, you can never change their intent. If the Constitution evolves on its' own with time, then no mechanism for change is needed. It isn't logical that a method to change the literal word is included if that weren't the intended way to read the document.

Well, that was reasonably short and sweet. And there are only four points for someone to hack away at. What's your take?

Verbatim. Words mean things that make sentences that mean things that make paragraphs that mean things that make stories that mean things. Reading into things/things that are not there is a pet peeve of mine.

[logroller]

this is what some of the anti federalist papers stated.
they thought this language was far to broad and gave the federal gov't nearly unlimited powers.
the federalist papers poo pooped that interpretation saying that the state legislatures and the general make up of the country, and truly representative leadership would not allow for that kind of interpretation or use. That the broad use of the certain general terms was rediculous.


But I think the Anti federalist had a point and the evloving side of the debate have run through that hole.

The Federalist exact rebuts to the above i and similar statements i can't put my fingers on right now.

Perhaps, but this 'broad' language is what was used and it stands as the supreme law of land. That was Pegwinn's point, as I understood it; that other docs are subordinate to the actual wording; if its too broad, then amend it; but one shouldn't draw conclusions which aren't supported by the Constitution in and of itself.


BUT..........it says welfare of the "United States", NOT the people, persons or individuals.
In fact, to me that means welfare as we know it today, is unconstitutional because it selects certain people to aid, whereas I think it should only provide something that virtually ALL Americans can access if they want to.

Those who wish to usurp the Constitution, claim it is a living breathing document, but they dont really believe it even themselves, they are just liars, and think they know whats best for everyone.
Remember the preamble; It says

I think the reason the People were omitted from section 8 is because section 8 outlines the Legislative Powers, pursuant to section 1 "All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...", meaning the People are represented by Congress and not actually there to voice their opinion; but to say the People aren't the United States is to ignore the very foundation of our constitutional government as described in the Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DOMTRAN), provide for the common defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html), promote the general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#POSTERITY), do ordain (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ORDAIN) and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Interestingly, in the preamble, the general welfare phrase is modified using the word 'promote', but in the Legislative powers section the word 'provide' is used
provide: to make available for use, supply
promote: further the progress of; support, or actively encourage

Any thoughts as to why?


do you mean physcially or legaly?

Both. Expatriation is physical, relinquishing citizenship is legal.

[pegwinn]

Perhaps, but this 'broad' language is what was used and it stands as the supreme law of land. That was Pegwinn's point, as I understood it; that other docs are subordinate to the actual wording; if its too broad, then amend it; but one shouldn't draw conclusions which aren't supported by the Constitution in and of itself.

Bingo


Any thoughts as to why?

The first is the mission statement, the second is the execution phase.

[DragonStryk72]

Alright. Let me see how this would apply. Take 'welfare', literally meaning 'health, happiness and well-being'. So if the People are, in general, overweight, have high cholesterol etc, as evidenced by a high incidence of heart attacks and diabetes; then We, generally speaking, are not healthy. Thus, Congress is empowered to make laws to change this, and have passed laws which, utilizing tax penalties, will increase the number of people who will have access to healthcare and are thus 'providing for the general welfare.' Case closed?


Nope, because the literal term is "provide for the general welfare", meaning that the government makes certain that healthy food is available at prices that won't break people, but what you choose to eat, and how much, are not in their purview. Combating obesity is specific form of welfare, not general. Providing food and shelter to Katrina victims? That's general welfare, as those are basics of life denied by the destruction of their previous homes. The government can make certain that houses are built so as to be structurally sound, but it doesn't allow them to build houses for the poor, or any other specific group.

[logroller]

Nope, because the literal term is "provide for the general welfare", meaning that the government makes certain that healthy food is available at prices that won't break people, but what you choose to eat, and how much, are not in their purview. Combating obesity is specific form of welfare, not general. Providing food and shelter to Katrina victims? That's general welfare, as those are basics of life denied by the destruction of their previous homes. The government can make certain that houses are built so as to be structurally sound, but it doesn't allow them to build houses for the poor, or any other specific group.

General: Affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.

Combating obesity and/or diabetes specifically, I could see your point. However, everybody eats and gets sick; thus in general, food standards and healthcare become integral into the broad construct of general welfare. Katrina is debatable; how widespread need something be to qualify as general. I would say that something which is endemic to an area, rather than a specific class of person, which encompasses/ affects more than one State would be general from a federal standpoint.

[ConHog]

I interpret the COTUS literally but at the same time recognize that there are situations that founding fathers simply couldn't have foreseen which while important do not rise to the level of requiring a constitutional amendment.

I'll give one example.

So called entitlement benefits. No matter you parse the welfare clause you can't stretch it to mean SSI,food stamps, TEA, and the myriad of others programs out there. It just can't be done. As Luv points out the welfare of the united states is the welfare of the country as a whole and NOT the welfare of a few people. Let's face it, everyone who is on welfare could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't have one single long term effect on our nation. It just wouldn't.

However, I recognize that it isn't in the spirit of being an American to allow people to starve when it is in our power to prevent it. So I am willing to support actual welfare (even as I champion welfare reform) even though it isn't within the government's constitutional purview to provide that. I only ask that those who benefit from my largesse do not abuse the system, and act grateful for said assistance. Sadly that is not usually the case.

So, no I don't stand firm on if it's not in the COTUS the government can't do it. But there has to be solid reasons for doing so.

[Little-Acorn]

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Alright. Let me see how this would apply. Take 'welfare', literally meaning 'health, happiness and well-being'. So if the People are, in general, overweight, have high cholesterol etc, as evidenced by a high incidence of heart attacks and diabetes; then We, generally speaking, are not healthy. Thus, Congress is empowered to make laws to change this, and have passed laws which, utilizing tax penalties, will increase the number of people who will have access to healthcare and are thus 'providing for the general welfare.' Case closed?

Case never got off the ground, due to misunderstanding of basic English and ignorance of what the people who wrote it, said it meant.

It means that Congress can collect taxes for certain purposes, and no others. Paying Debts, providing for defense, and providing for GENERAL welfare. And in 1789, General welfare meant the well-being of everybody equally, different from "local Welfare" which meant the well-being of smaller groups over others.

The part of the Constitution you quoted, was a restriction on what tax money could be spent on. (a) paying govt debts, (b) providing for the defense of the nation, and (c) things that will benefits everybody in the country equally. Nothing else.

Things that will benefit smaller groups, i.e. Special Interests, are omitted, and therefore FORBIDDEN by this section of the Constitution.

It's one of the most carefully, and commonly, misinterpreted sections of the Constitution.

Other frequently misinterpreted sections are the Commerce Clause, 10th amendment, and 2nd amendment... but those can be subjects for other threads if you like.


no I don't stand firm on if it's not in the COTUS the government can't do it.
I do. Why? Because the Constitution does. (Also because it's a good idea, but that's not my main reason.)

And some of you seem to have forgotten that the Constitution isn't just a suggestion. It's the LAW.

You want the Fed govt to do something outside what it says, fine. Go ahead... and change it. There are procedures in place for doing that.

If you don't want to change it, then go ahead and get your state (or states) to do it instead (Welfare payments, workplace regulations, etc.). That's cool too.

Things forbidden to Congress (such as Welfare payments, Social Security etc.) aren't forbidden to everyone by the Constitution. They're merely forbidden to the Fed govt. The states and local govts can still do them, mostly. So go ahead and get the states to do them!

But leave the Federal govt alone... as the Constitution commands.

[logroller]

Case never got off the ground, due to misunderstanding of basic English and ignorance of what the people who wrote it, said it meant.

Well, first off, the premise of thread was the Constitution alone spoke for itself; that no additional supporting documentation as per the legislative intent was necessary-- I simply applied that logic. Feel free to debate Pegwinn's premise as being ignorant, but I just applied that logic. Basic English?--I used the definition provided by an english language dictionary. Furthermore, I stated that the provision of healthcare was done through the use of taxes, albeit as a penalty, but nonetheless a tax pursuant to providing for the general welfare. Now unless you think that having access to healthcare is something which is specific to a certain class, local or otherwise, then it is reasonable to assume that it is general in nature. If someone is unable to afford healthcare, it is provided, but someone must pay for it. As per Section 8, Clause 1-- Congress has the power to levy taxes, but unlike duties, excises and imposts, which must be uniform, taxes need not be uniform in application. Therefore the taxes levied against those without a fiduciary guarantor, like health insurance, is Consitutional.

[pegwinn]

So, no I don't stand firm on if it's not in the COTUS the government can't do it. But there has to be solid reasons for doing so.

If there are things needed that are not addressed by the Constitution, then what is needed first is an amendment in my opinion. Social welfare? Sure if the states and communities want to, then they can jump on it. It will make them more competitive as people decide where they want to live and work. But, until amended, it simply isn't authorized in my view.

Every time we allow an infraction of the rule we create an environment where more rules will be violated. Better to question the rule itself and make it into something we feel is worth enforcing 100%.

[pegwinn]

Well, first off, the premise of thread was the Constitution alone spoke for itself; that no additional supporting documentation as per the legislative intent was necessary-- I simply applied that logic. Feel free to debate Pegwinn's premise as being ignorant,....

Actually I was hoping someone who preferred anything other than my way to present thier case and thier reasoning for believing that was the right way. If someone wants to debate me over my logic, sure, why not.

[logroller]

Actually I was hoping someone who preferred anything other than my way to present thier case and thier reasoning for believing that was the right way. If someone wants to debate me over my logic, sure, why not.
I've always been a fan of my interpretation as being the best- as Ben Franklin quipped, yielding to the eloquence of a French lady entrenched in a dispute with her sister-- "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right."

[ConHog]

Actually I was hoping someone who preferred anything other than my way to present thier case and thier reasoning for believing that was the right way. If someone wants to debate me over my logic, sure, why not.

Then we better get rid of over 90% of the government, or pass a bunch of constitutional amendments. Do you really think we can work within those sorts of limits ? There are some issues which need Amendments, and there are other issues which judicial interpretation can allow. That is precisely why the founders were so vague in many of their writings.

For instance, abortion law. is there ANYWHERE in the COTUS that would allow the government to set the law? Yet of all the arguments I've heard about abortion, I can't recall anyone questioning whether the federal government could dictate the law, only opinions on what that law should be. Currently the law is they are legal. That is a moral issue, can you imagine if we passed an Amendment legalizing abortion, then in ten years if the tide turns and abortion isn't wanted, what another amendment to nullify the first one? Oh , that's right that was done once, and in fact there is a reason why in 250 + years it was only done once.


Nope, The fathers absolutely meant for the COTUS to be left vague and in fact in Article III Section 2 specifically created the SCOTUS to adjudicate matters concerning the COTUS.

[Little-Acorn]

Then we better get rid of over 90% of the government,

It's good that you noticed that. Congress and various Presidents have been passing various laws flatly opposed to the Constitution, for a hundred years now, more or less. They've been at it for so long, that the great bulk of the laws now on the books, are unconstitutional.

In fact, the various leftists who support it all, have been using the enormity of their violations, as a weapon against repeal. "Do you have any idea how much of present government you'll have to change if you do that???" ....as if it was conservatives' fault instead of theirs, as if it was the conservatives doing harm instead of the leftists.


or pass a bunch of constitutional amendments.

Yep, that's an alternative. But as you point out, it would be tough to make up for 100 years of unconstitutional behavior via amendments... and you'd wind up invalidating the bulk of the Constitution to do it, to boot. The sheer bulk of the task, is daunting.

But there's another reason you can't do it with amendments: The American people don't want the Constitution to be changed in most of those ways. The only way the leftists have gotten away with their unconstitutional legislation, is by doing a little at a time, built up over a hundred years, in hopes that most Americans won't notice the gradual change or will let it go. If you bring up amendments to "make it legal", people will be confronted with the stark difference between what the Constitution says, and what the Fed govt has been doing... and will reject most such amendments out of hand.

And the leftists know it. That's why they've been avoiding the Constitutional-amendment route like the plague - they know the American people would reject their agenda if it were presented openly and honestly. Sneaking it in and getting people quietly hooked on the "Big Govt" narcotic, is the only hope they have of putting their agenda in place.

[DragonStryk72]

General: Affecting or concerning all or most people, places, or things; widespread.

Combating obesity and/or diabetes specifically, I could see your point. However, everybody eats and gets sick; thus in general, food standards and healthcare become integral into the broad construct of general welfare. Katrina is debatable; how widespread need something be to qualify as general. I would say that something which is endemic to an area, rather than a specific class of person, which encompasses/ affects more than one State would be general from a federal standpoint.

Certainly standards are necessary, especially with so much food coming from other nations, and healthcare standards exist to ensure that the people can be secure in going to doctors. In the case of Katrina, it hit several states, with the states individually not having the resources to combat an F5 hurricane, so that falls under general.

It must be admitted, however, that the federal government of current has exceeded this authority

[loosecannon]

How do you choose to interpret the Constitution?

I'm not looking for other peoples (pundits, judges, famous folks) opinions here. I am more interested in your own personal philosophy and how you come by it. We all read quotes daily, and argue frequently over the words and clauses. We even tell each other that we are blessed idiots for not following this or that train of thought. Well, tis time for people to see if their way of doing it is based on anything ranging from brutal facts to random bursts of stupid.

I was going to do a poll and list options like "original intent" or "evolving." In my opinion, those options would be as limited as a church poll would be to a Greek Orthodox Heathen Jue. So, if you are a combination of evolving Socratic (whatever that means), and limited parsing; lay it down, claim it, and explain it.

This'll go on one of two ways (which now guarantees a third way will appear). We will either take the time to explain our world view, or we will simply devolve into pointing fingers, giggling, and launching insults in the finest message board traditions.

For me, my method is the Literal Word. I like to think that my philosophy is based on pretty hard logic. You be the judge.

First: The Constitution was not written by one man. It was written by an overlapping series of committees. Each person in the committee had his original intent. So, if the committee was five people, there were five intents to be reconciled. History tells us that the committees did not simply show up and write words willy nilly. Instead, each word was weighed and argued (loudly and into the night) until all the intents were represented by the written words. So, we cannot use a document from John Adams to explain a clause without realizing that his was but ONE esteemed opinion or intent. That much emphasis on wording tells me that the literal words are the intent of the founders (plural).

Second: To interpret the Constitution other than literally causes you to cite other documents to be as/more authoritative than the Constitution itself. Take the Wall of Separation as an example. It appears nowhere in the document. And yet, because of interpretations, the letter written to the Danbury Baptists has been accepted as canon. By that acceptance, we place the letter on par with the supreme law of the land. I cannot do that. Thus, I subscribe literally to its words to avoid having to have a library of scholarly treatise and esoteric translations.

Third: The entire body of regulation and law that I have ever encountered is based on the literal word. You don't stroll into court and declare that the intent of the speed limit was to create safe highways. I tried that. The judge countered that the intent was that I not travel over 55 mph. He assured me that if traveling at 64 was ok on that stretch, the signs would have pointed the way. Additionally, I've dealt with regulations in the service and with the Code of Federal Regulations. Each was very specific. In fact, violations noted by the IG or EPA always quoted the reg "chapter and verse" to ensure I knew just how fouled up I was.

Finally; The Constitution has a specific method of change when such is needed. Because the founders are dead, you can never change their intent. If the Constitution evolves on its' own with time, then no mechanism for change is needed. It isn't logical that a method to change the literal word is included if that weren't the intended way to read the document.

Well, that was reasonably short and sweet. And there are only four points for someone to hack away at. What's your take?

is there even a difference between your opinion and your personal philosophy?

And is there any such thing as a "right" way to read the constitution?

Much of the constitution was compromise settled upon to secure ratification, much of it was just the political thinking of the day, almost all of it is outdated, undermined by 230 years of juris prudence and it had different meanings to the folks who haggled over it's content and who haggled over signing the damned document in the first place.

Not to mention the fact that being a federal document rather than a state charter nearly nobody around when the constitution was drafted was very keen on empowering the federal government. So the constitution deliberately defines the powers of the feds within far stricter confines than those the same folks envisioned for the states.

Example: a LOT of people imagine our founders enshrined within the constitution myriad noble tenets securing civil liberties and canonizing individual rights and freedoms.

NOTHING could be further from the truth! The founders were all in favor of a 5 tiered society with different rights for men, women, children, slaves and non land owning men. And almost none of them imagined a nation in which the states would be prohibited from securing or denying those rights for any particular class of citizen. They only agreed that the FEDS should not have that power. Not that the STATES shouldn't.

The constitution was a work in progress, not a final destination. Just one primitive mile stone in a long evolution of contractual governance. Or social contract. It was never intended to be a permanent destination or an ultimate solution. Just a good start on a long journey.

[pegwinn]

Then we better get rid of over 90% of the government, or pass a bunch of constitutional amendments. ...

I agree with the need to reduce the .gov and to make some amendments. I don't care what they, the founders, meant since it was a committee. I care about what they wrote into the Constitution. I disagree that they are vague. The document is pretty specific if you view it as a method of limited government. There are broad portions I think need to be amended such as the commerce clause. But until amended, by my own logic I have to honor it. Damn the luck.

Abortion is not the province of any branch of government simply because the Constitution is silent on it. Thus, it is a matter to the States or the People as applicable. You mentioned passing it, then the tide turning. As you noted, we did that with Amendments 18 and 21. Ya win some ya lose some. The Republic still stands.

SCOTUS can adjudicate all it wants. And the Congress should react to that adjudication by correcting the problem. Separation of Powers doesn't mean there cannot be adjustments and course corrections as each branch does it's thing. The problem with SCOTUS in my humble opinion is that they read too much into things instead of simply applying the written word.

Did that make sense? Normally I reply specifically to someones post by cutting it up. More clarity that way. But, I seem to remember you and the Gunny don't like that. So, I am trying to get along if you will.

[ConHog]

It's good that you noticed that. Congress and various Presidents have been passing various laws flatly opposed to the Constitution, for a hundred years now, more or less. They've been at it for so long, that the great bulk of the laws now on the books, are unconstitutional.

In fact, the various leftists who support it all, have been using the enormity of their violations, as a weapon against repeal. "Do you have any idea how much of present government you'll have to change if you do that???" ....as if it was conservatives' fault instead of theirs, as if it was the conservatives doing harm instead of the leftists.



Yep, that's an alternative. But as you point out, it would be tough to make up for 100 years of unconstitutional behavior via amendments... and you'd wind up invalidating the bulk of the Constitution to do it, to boot. The sheer bulk of the task, is daunting.

But there's another reason you can't do it with amendments: The American people don't want the Constitution to be changed in most of those ways. The only way the leftists have gotten away with their unconstitutional legislation, is by doing a little at a time, built up over a hundred years, in hopes that most Americans won't notice the gradual change or will let it go. If you bring up amendments to "make it legal", people will be confronted with the stark difference between what the Constitution says, and what the Fed govt has been doing... and will reject most such amendments out of hand.

And the leftists know it. That's why they've been avoiding the Constitutional-amendment route like the plague - they know the American people would reject their agenda if it were presented openly and honestly. Sneaking it in and getting people quietly hooked on the "Big Govt" narcotic, is the only hope they have of putting their agenda in place.



You're talking about people who take things too far, and I agree with you about them. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some legitimately good things that have been done without the express authority of the Constitution.

[pegwinn]

is there even a difference between your opinion and your personal philosophy?

Not much, I'm kinda single minded that way. From time to time in the service I would be counseled on the need to be tactful and not quite so opinionated. Since they kept promoting me and putting me in charge of stuff I guess I wasn't so bad.


And is there any such thing as a "right" way to read the constitution?

I think there is. I even put about 600 words into specifics of why I think my way is the right way. Did any of those specifics warrant a rebuttal? If so, please dive in.


Much of the constitution was compromise settled upon to secure ratification, much of it was just the political thinking of the day, almost all of it is outdated, undermined by 230 years of juris prudence and it had different meanings to the folks who haggled over it's content and who haggled over signing the damned document in the first place.

In order of your statements:


Yes,
not quite since it was a radical idea,
not outdated merely not used,
undermined is an understatement,
the meaning was settled at the signing (that's what all the haggling was; a reconciliation)



Not to mention the fact that being a federal document rather than a state charter nearly nobody around when the constitution was drafted was very keen on empowering the federal government. So the constitution deliberately defines the powers of the feds within far stricter confines than those the same folks envisioned for the states.

Exactly. I assume from the general tone of the paragraph that you don't agree with that thought process. I'm cool with that actually since it will give a starting point to the conversation. Two questions: Why do you believe they chose that model? Why do you believe that model is no longer the right thing to do?


Example: a LOT of people imagine our founders enshrined within the constitution myriad noble tenets securing civil liberties and canonizing individual rights and freedoms.

Amendments 1-10. Gotcha.


NOTHING could be further from the truth! The founders were all in favor of a 5 tiered society with different rights for men, women, children, slaves and non land owning men. And almost none of them imagined a nation in which the states would be prohibited from securing or denying those rights for any particular class of citizen. They only agreed that the FEDS should not have that power. Not that the STATES shouldn't.

Ok, and so what? What they were in favor of is irrelevant once the ink on the signature page of the last ratification doc was signed. And, yes, it was generally felt that the States should hold a closer influence on the People as they were closer to the people. So far I am all for it. Less fed and more City Council with the State somewhere in between. How would you do it?


The constitution was a work in progress, not a final destination. Just one primitive mile stone in a long evolution of contractual governance. Or social contract. It was never intended to be a permanent destination or an ultimate solution. Just a good start on a long journey.

With respect, I believe you are totally wrong. A work in progress is "to be continued". If it was meant to be continued, why not write in a mandatory time hack for a constitutional convention just as they did for elections and the census?

I gather from the general tone of your post that you believe the Constitution is of the living/evolving or change with the times form. Is that correct?

[LuvRPgrl]

Not much, I'm kinda single minded that way. From time to time in the service I would be counseled on the need to be tactful and not quite so opinionated. Since they kept promoting me and putting me in charge of stuff I guess I wasn't so bad.



I think there is. I even put about 600 words into specifics of why I think my way is the right way. Did any of those specifics warrant a rebuttal? If so, please dive in.



In order of your statements:

Yes,
not quite since it was a radical idea,
not outdated merely not used,
undermined is an understatement,
the meaning was settled at the signing (that's what all the haggling was; a reconciliation)



Exactly. I assume from the general tone of the paragraph that you don't agree with that thought process. I'm cool with that actually since it will give a starting point to the conversation. Two questions: Why do you believe they chose that model? Why do you believe that model is no longer the right thing to do?



Amendments 1-10. Gotcha.



Ok, and so what? What they were in favor of is irrelevant once the ink on the signature page of the last ratification doc was signed. And, yes, it was generally felt that the States should hold a closer influence on the People as they were closer to the people. So far I am all for it. Less fed and more City Council with the State somewhere in between. How would you do it?



With respect, I believe you are totally wrong. A work in progress is "to be continued". If it was meant to be continued, why not write in a mandatory time hack for a constitutional convention just as they did for elections and the census?

I gather from the general tone of your post that you believe the Constitution is of the living/evolving or change with the times form. Is that correct?

I actually think it was meant to be continued. BUT,,,,they put in place a mechanism for continuing it, AMENDMENTS.
They had just come off the federalist papers which failed to give the feds enough power for the country as a whole to function successfully, so they worked on giving the feds more power, but virtually, if not literally, all of them were seriously concerned with the feds having too much power.
IT WAS THE SINGLE MOST SPECIFIC CONCERN, FEDS GETTING TOO MUCH POWER, and yet they have roughshod right over it using excuses like
LOOSECANON came up with.

[Little-Acorn]

You're talking about people who take things too far, and I agree with you about them. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some legitimately good things that have been done without the express authority of the Constitution.

Of course. The existence of the EPA, for example, fills a need that only the Fed Govt can supply, regulating pollution that crosses state borders. No single state can effectively control that. And a state receiving pollution, is ulikely to get the cooperation of the state generating it. The Federal government has a legitimate role here, one never imagined by the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and which is not covered by that document. The people who wrote it, put in methods to amend the Constitution, precisely because they knew that situations could arise that they could not forsee, and which possibly could not be handled by state governments..

But, again, the leftists wanted no part of any amendment that might authorize an EPA - because the amendment would also limit it. As it should. The leftists prefer to have unlimited authority and power, as they have now until someone finally slaps them down.

An amendment authorizing a legitimate EPA would be a good thing - as long as it limits the EPA to only certain things. Regulating proven, existing pollution that crosses state borders, for example There may be more, but they must be spelled out. The authority to arbitrarily declare certain tracts of land within a state as "wetlands" or whetever, must not be included - nor should any other such silly laws.

Constructed this way, I believe that such an EPA amendment has a good chance of passage and ratification... if the leftists fanatics in Congress don't get upset with its limitations and vote against it because it "doesn't do enough". That is, if it doesn't give them the huge powers they have taken with no written limits.

The purpose of the Constitution has always been twofold: To create the Federal government it describes and give it its powers... and to limit those powers so that it cannot take more (without explicit and overwhelming approval), as government have ALWAYS historically tried to do, without exception.

I see no reason why that purpose should be changed now. Do you?

[pegwinn]

I actually think it was meant to be continued. BUT,,,,they put in place a mechanism for continuing it, AMENDMENTS.
They had just come off the federalist papers which failed to give the feds enough power for the country as a whole to function successfully, so they worked on giving the feds more power, but virtually, if not literally, all of them were seriously concerned with the feds having too much power.
IT WAS THE SINGLE MOST SPECIFIC CONCERN, FEDS GETTING TOO MUCH POWER, and yet they have roughshod right over it using excuses like
LOOSECANON came up with.

I've never read the Articles of Confederation to be honest. So, I will stipulate that you are right on the mark about the Fed not having enough power. Fair enough? I also agree with the whole roughshod statement. I think that in reality the Fed began going astray almost immediately in a couple of cases. I think it accelerated in the 1930's and again in the 1960's.

My major beef is that we have a rulebook and knowingly don't follow the rules.

[ConHog]

Of course. The existence of the EPA, for example, fills a need that only the Fed Govt can supply, regulating pollution that crosses state borders. No single state can effectively control that. And a state receiving pollution, is ulikely to get the cooperation of the state generating it. The Federal government has a legitimate role here, one never imagined by the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and which is not covered by that document. The people who wrote it, put in methods to amend the Constitution, precisely because they knew that situations could arise that they could not forsee, and which possibly could not be handled by state governments..

But, again, the leftists wanted no part of any amendment that might authorize an EPA - because the amendment would also limit it. As it should. The leftists prefer to have unlimited authority and power, as they have now until someone finally slaps them down.

An amendment authorizing a legitimate EPA would be a good thing - as long as it limits the EPA to only certain things. Regulating proven, existing pollution that crosses state borders, for example There may be more, but they must be spelled out. The authority to arbitrarily declare certain tracts of land within a state as "wetlands" or whetever, must not be included - nor should any other such silly laws.

Constructed this way, I believe that such an EPA amendment has a good chance of passage and ratification... if the leftists fanatics in Congress don't get upset with its limitations and vote against it because it "doesn't do enough". That is, if it doesn't give them the huge powers they have taken with no written limits.

The purpose of the Constitution has always been twofold: To create the Federal government it describes and give it its powers... and to limit those powers so that it cannot take more (without explicit and overwhelming approval), as government have ALWAYS historically tried to do, without exception.

I see no reason why that purpose should be changed now. Do you?

On the contrary it is my opinion, and I fully admit that this due to studying other documents , that the fathers left the term general welfare pretty vague in order that the people could for example say "we need a federal agency that regulates pollution control for the general welfare of the country."

In other words, after many years of studying US history in order to obtain 2 B.A.s and a Masters in history it is my OPINION that the COTUS can not be read as a stand alone document when determine how our founders meant for our country to ran.

[pegwinn]

In other words, after many years of studying US history in order to obtain 2 B.A.s and a Masters in history it is my OPINION that the COTUS can not be read as a stand alone document when determine how our founders meant for our country to ran.

Doesn't that put other documents on an equal footing with the Constitution? If we have to have the Danbury Letter to clarify the 1st Amendment, are we assigning it the same importance? Additionally, does that make the writer of the document "more equal" than the rest of the drafters and signers?

Judging from this and other comments I assume that if I'd included a poll, you'd have picked "originalist" or "original intent"?

Three degrees? Cool, you are three up on me :cool: Did your team play or win today? I work for Texas Tech and the only bowl they got was Tidy.

[Little-Acorn]

I think that in reality the Fed began going astray almost immediately in a couple of cases. I think it accelerated in the 1930's and again in the 1960's.

My major beef is that we have a rulebook and knowingly don't follow the rules.

Welcome to conservatism. :D

[LuvRPgrl]

I've never read the Articles of Confederation to be honest. So, I will stipulate that you are right on the mark about the Fed not having enough power. Fair enough? I also agree with the whole roughshod statement. I think that in reality the Fed began going astray almost immediately in a couple of cases. I think it accelerated in the 1930's and again in the 1960's.

My major beef is that we have a rulebook and knowingly don't follow the rules.

well, you are right on the money. And you dont have to have read the articles of confederation, just the fact that they replaced them is evidence they didnt work, and you can read how many of those attending the debates about our current COTUS, they often noted they wanted to make sure the feds dont get to much power and wouldnt sign on unless certain restrictions were guaranteed.
The FF's only wanted the feds to handle that which the states couldnt. Now, its, they handle anything they can, period.

[logroller]

Certainly standards are necessary, especially with so much food coming from other nations, and healthcare standards exist to ensure that the people can be secure in going to doctors. In the case of Katrina, it hit several states, with the states individually not having the resources to combat an F5 hurricane, so that falls under general.

It must be admitted, however, that the federal government of current has exceeded this authority
From a constitutional standpoint, I'm inclined to agree. Conversely, I would say the state governments have been negligent. If state government is negligent in its provision to the People, is the Federal gov't compelled to intervene? Intervention maybe unconstitutional, but the States' negligent provisions created the environment for federal intervention. Chicken or the egg, quite the conundrum.

You're talking about people who take things too far, and I agree with you about them. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some legitimately good things that have been done without the express authority of the Constitution.
Classic means vs ends argument. I agree with the ends, but does that justify breaking the law?

[revelarts]

It's good that you noticed that. Congress and various Presidents have been passing various laws flatly opposed to the Constitution, for a hundred years now, more or less. They've been at it for so long, that the great bulk of the laws now on the books, are unconstitutional.

In fact, the various leftists who support it all, have been using the enormity of their violations, as a weapon against repeal. "Do you have any idea how much of present government you'll have to change if you do that???" ....as if it was conservatives' fault instead of theirs, as if it was the conservatives doing harm instead of the leftists.



Yep, that's an alternative. But as you point out, it would be tough to make up for 100 years of unconstitutional behavior via amendments... and you'd wind up invalidating the bulk of the Constitution to do it, to boot. The sheer bulk of the task, is daunting.

But there's another reason you can't do it with amendments: The American people don't want the Constitution to be changed in most of those ways. The only way the leftists have gotten away with their unconstitutional legislation, is by doing a little at a time, built up over a hundred years, in hopes that most Americans won't notice the gradual change or will let it go. If you bring up amendments to "make it legal", people will be confronted with the stark difference between what the Constitution says, and what the Fed govt has been doing... and will reject most such amendments out of hand.

And the leftists know it. That's why they've been avoiding the Constitutional-amendment route like the plague - they know the American people would reject their agenda if it were presented openly and honestly. Sneaking it in and getting people quietly hooked on the "Big Govt" narcotic, is the only hope they have of putting their agenda in place.

Sounds like Ron Paul but he's INSANE, i'm told, and can't be right, so we should never REALLY try this again. No other candidates or partys ever come close to proposing this. or take it seriously ecept 4 fringe 3rd parties like the constitution party. So I suppose we should just forget about. The idea is moot, the constitution is only a figure head of the federal gov't not the the law anymore. Like the queen of england people like to bring it out and bow but not really pay much attention. the discussion is academic among those here it seems to me. Does anyone here really want the constitution, what do you think should be done to come some where close to what your talking about ..except for ConHog who seems satisfied with the current state. I know most of you hate Ron Paul And I'm aguring for him right now. but what are YOU doing to make you ideas about constitution real. What do we DO?

[jimnyc]

Sounds like Ron Paul but he's INSANE, so we should never try this again. No other candidates or partys ever come close to proposing this. So I suppose we just have to forget about. The idea is moot, the constitution is just a figure head of the gov't not the the law anymore. the discussion is acedemic among those here it seems to me.

A discussion about the constitution and Rev will try to make it a discussion about RP. Saying Ron Paul is a kook doesn't mean he is insane. Saying his policies and beliefs are insane, or lunacy, doesn't mean the man is insane. Unless of course I missed others saying so, or unless you're once again stretching what people say to make your posts sound better.

[revelarts]

A discussion about the constitution and Rev will try to make it a discussion about RP. Saying Ron Paul is a kook doesn't mean he is insane. Saying his policies and beliefs are insane, or lunacy, doesn't mean the man is insane. Unless of course I missed others saying so, or unless you're once again stretching what people say to make your posts sound better.

What do you want to do to promote a literal application of the constitution Jim? You want to get there to i assme but i don't want to but word in you mouth. What do we do?

[jimnyc]

What do you want to do to promote a literal aplication of the constitution Jim? You want to get there to i assme but i don't want to but word in you mouth. What do we do?

Don't know and don't care, I was simply addressing putting words out there that haven't been said, or re-stating them in a manner to bolster your point.

[Gunny]

Then we better get rid of over 90% of the government, or pass a bunch of constitutional amendments. Do you really think we can work within those sorts of limits ? There are some issues which need Amendments, and there are other issues which judicial interpretation can allow. That is precisely why the founders were so vague in many of their writings.

For instance, abortion law. is there ANYWHERE in the COTUS that would allow the government to set the law? Yet of all the arguments I've heard about abortion, I can't recall anyone questioning whether the federal government could dictate the law, only opinions on what that law should be. Currently the law is they are legal. That is a moral issue, can you imagine if we passed an Amendment legalizing abortion, then in ten years if the tide turns and abortion isn't wanted, what another amendment to nullify the first one? Oh , that's right that was done once, and in fact there is a reason why in 250 + years it was only done once.


Nope, The fathers absolutely meant for the COTUS to be left vague and in fact in Article III Section 2 specifically created the SCOTUS to adjudicate matters concerning the COTUS.

Not to turn this into yet another argument about Roe v Wade; however, I don't think the founders intended that judicial interpretation be partisan. The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret law. Not make decisions based on partisanship nor what's currently popular.

[ConHog]

well, you are right on the money. And you dont have to have read the articles of confederation, just the fact that they replaced them is evidence they didnt work, and you can read how many of those attending the debates about our current COTUS, they often noted they wanted to make sure the feds dont get to much power and wouldnt sign on unless certain restrictions were guaranteed.
The FF's only wanted the feds to handle that which the states couldnt. Now, its, they handle anything they can, period.


Not to turn this into yet another argument about Roe v Wade; however, I don't think the founders intended that judicial interpretation be partisan. The function of the Supreme Court is to interpret law. Not make decisions based on partisanship nor what's currently popular.
Right on both counts. The court is only to rule on the legality of laws not the morality. And they are supposed to be completely apolitical when doing so.

[loosecannon]

In order of your statements:


Yes,
not quite since it was a radical idea,
not outdated merely not used,
undermined is an understatement,
the meaning was settled at the signing (that's what all the haggling was; a reconciliation)



It wasn't a radical idea, just the existing philosophies of Locke, Rouseau, and John Adams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_state_constitution

And the meanings of the constitution were never settled and the diversity of opinions led directly to the civil war. There are still Federalists and strict constitutionalists who disagree broadly about what the document means.





Amendments 1-10. Gotcha.



A LOT of people make that mistake but nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill of rights was added mainly to preserve unto the states the authority to determine what rights and powers the states and the individual would retain within each state. And of course to prevent the federal government from usurping rights from the individual.

But everybody who signed agreed to a multi tiered spectrum of rights that afforded rights in different measure to each class of citizen or resident:

>free men who owned property and had birthright citizenship
>free men who had birthright citizenship
>non free men who had birthright citizenship
>women
>children
>non citizen residents and diplomats
>indians

There is simply no truth whatsoever that the bill of rights was included in the document because the founders intended to guarantee equal rights and liberties to all, or even to any. It was included only to prevent the federal government from trampling the liberties of citizens of the states. No provisions were included to prevent the states from trampling people's liberties. And it wasn't until many decades had passed before the notion that Federal law trumped state law came into currency.

[revelarts]

Sounds like Ron Paul but he's INSANE, i'm told, and can't be right, so we should never REALLY try this again. No other candidates or partys ever come close to proposing this. or take it seriously ecept 4 fringe 3rd parties like the constitution party. So I suppose we should just forget about. The idea is moot, the constitution is only a figure head of the federal gov't not the the law anymore. Like the queen of england people like to bring it out and bow but not really pay much attention. the discussion is academic among those here it seems to me. Does anyone here really want the constitution, what do you think should be done to come some where close to what your talking about ..except for ConHog who seems satisfied with the current state. I know most of you hate Ron Paul And I'm NOT arguing for him right now. but what are YOU doing to make you ideas about constitution real. What do we DO?
I meant to say, Freudian slip i guess

[ConHog]

It wasn't a radical idea, just the existing philosophies of Locke, Rouseau, and John Adams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_state_constitution

And the meanings of the constitution were never settled and the diversity of opinions led directly to the civil war. There are still Federalists and strict constitutionalists who disagree broadly about what the document means.







A LOT of people make that mistake but nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill of rights was added mainly to preserve unto the states the authority to determine what rights and powers the states and the individual would retain within each state. And of course to prevent the federal government from usurping rights from the individual.

But everybody who signed agreed to a multi tiered spectrum of rights that afforded rights in different measure to each class of citizen or resident:

>free men who owned property and had birthright citizenship
>free men who had birthright citizenship
>non free men who had birthright citizenship
>women
>children
>non citizen residents and diplomats
>indians

There is simply no truth whatsoever that the bill of rights was included in the document because the founders intended to guarantee equal rights and liberties to all, or even to any. It was included only to prevent the federal government from trampling the liberties of citizens of the states. No provisions were included to prevent the states from trampling people's liberties. And it wasn't until many decades had passed before the notion that Federal law trumped state law came into currency.


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.


Federal law has ALWAYS trumped state law in the US. Now , it is true that the founding fathers meant for the Bill of Rights to only preserve rights from being trampled by the federal government, not the states; but even then they required states to have similar amendments in their own constitutions before admittance to the union.

So if you're talking about the idea of states being bound by the COTUS amendments not becoming popular until decades later you're right, but if you're talking about federal law being > than state law, well that has always been the case in this country.

[LuvRPgrl]

From a constitutional standpoint, I'm inclined to agree. Conversely, I would say the state governments have been negligent. If state government is negligent in its provision to the People, is the Federal gov't compelled to intervene? Intervention maybe unconstitutional, but the States' negligent provisions created the environment for federal intervention. Chicken or the egg, quite the conundrum.

Classic means vs ends argument. I agree with the ends, but does that justify breaking the law?

NOt only does it not justify it, but it isnt even the best thing.
What happens is simple. People want some change, It isnt happening fast enough. They do an end run on the COTUS, citing its for the greater good, its gonna save lives, etc, etc. What they dont acknowledge is there are other ways of accomplishing the same thing, better ways. But their thirst for power is too great, they cant wait.
.....They use propaganda and other avenues, judicial activism, etc to get what they want through federal action, even though it is unconstitutional, but because of the "dire emergency", the people allow it.

Problem is, it sets up a precedent. It will , as it always does, come back to bite them in the ass for stomping on the COTUS.
Ultimately it makes the COTUS a useless document. As it has done. Because it was suppose to be a temporary one time thing because of an emergency, just like many taxes are suppose to be temporary until a crisis is over, but it never happens. It always stays in place.

The crown jewels of anti democracy, anti Constitutionalists, is "emminent domain." EVEN most of those who supported federal intervention in many issues, are crying about the immenent domain ruling.
Its just a matter of time, DC is like a black hole, power goes one way, it sucks it in. The STates have nmo way to fight back.

[LuvRPgrl]

Sounds like Ron Paul but he's INSANE, i'm told, and can't be right, so we should never REALLY try this again. No other candidates or partys ever come close to proposing this. or take it seriously ecept 4 fringe 3rd parties like the constitution party. So I suppose we should just forget about. The idea is moot, the constitution is only a figure head of the federal gov't not the the law anymore. Like the queen of england people like to bring it out and bow but not really pay much attention. the discussion is academic among those here it seems to me. Does anyone here really want the constitution, what do you think should be done to come some where close to what your talking about ..except for ConHog who seems satisfied with the current state. I know most of you hate Ron Paul And I'm aguring for him right now. but what are YOU doing to make you ideas about constitution real. What do we DO?

The problem with Paul is classic idealism vs pragmatism.
He is simply too radical on many issues to win the election. Period, end of story.
He may feel better for not backing down from his ideals, but it prevents him from being able to implement any of them.

That issue effect all of us who are active in the political process.
There are times when its a tough call, but other times when it aint even close, and Paul is one of those that aint even close.

[loosecannon]

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.


Federal law has ALWAYS trumped state law in the US. Now , it is true that the founding fathers meant for the Bill of Rights to only preserve rights from being trampled by the federal government, not the states; but even then they required states to have similar amendments in their own constitutions before admittance to the union.

So if you're talking about the idea of states being bound by the COTUS amendments not becoming popular until decades later you're right, but if you're talking about federal law being > than state law, well that has always been the case in this country.

only within the scope of the legal domains retained by the federal government rather than the states and the individual:




Ninth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

<dl><dd>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</dd></dl>

Tenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) – Powers of States and people.


<dl><dd>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.
</dd></dl>

unless the constitution specifically asserts that Federal government law trumps that of states and individuals it doesn't. The states retain legal authority over the remaining legal domain that exceeds and supercedes that of the feds. Or at least that's how it was until the civil war. And there has been continual erosion of states rights since then.

[LuvRPgrl]

It wasn't a radical idea, just the existing philosophies of Locke, Rouseau, and John Adams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_state_constitution. BALONEY, Yea, it was radical. All ideas evolve from other previous ones, but in this case, they took it to a radical new level that didnt exist anywhere and was quite controversial.




And the meanings of the constitution were never settled .
More baloney, it was settled, its called the current Constitution, thats why they agreed to sign it into law.

and the diversity of opinions led directly to the civil war..
More baloney. The civil war happened because of one issue the FF's didnt want to address at the time, because it was too big to deal with without causing the entire thing to fall apart. It is similiar to the idealism vs pragmatism in my post above. The ff's who wanted slavery abolished simply decided it was too much to ask for at the time, PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY DEALING WITH A RADICAL NEW CONCEPT.


There are still Federalists and strict constitutionalists who disagree broadly about what the document means..
EVEN MORE BALONEY. There are constitutionalists, and there are those who dont want it to be the reigning document of the land because it doesnty give THEM, enough power, so they come up with the bullshit propaganda lies to influence the ignorant and stupid of the masses to allow them to circumvent the COTUS. and they have done well.
THEY know full well what it means, but they claim otherwise cuz making things blurry is to their advantage.








A LOT of people make that mistake but nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill of rights was added mainly to preserve unto the states the authority to determine what rights and powers the states and the individual would retain within each state. And of course to prevent the federal government from usurping rights from the individual.

But everybody who signed agreed to a multi tiered spectrum of rights that afforded rights in different measure to each class of citizen or resident:

>free men who owned property and had birthright citizenship
>free men who had birthright citizenship
>non free men who had birthright citizenship
>women
>children
>non citizen residents and diplomats
>indians.
not every, only some.




There is simply no truth whatsoever that the bill of rights was included in the document because the founders intended to guarantee equal rights and liberties to all, or even to any. It was included only to prevent the federal government from trampling the liberties of citizens of the states. No provisions were included to prevent the states from trampling people's liberties. And it wasn't until many decades had passed before the notion that Federal law trumped state law came into currency.
Nope, the concept that fed usurped state power was there even before the signing. Otherwise, why bother writing it.
It seems as though you are one who wants it to say something different and then claim it doesnt mean what it says, it means what "I want it to mean".

[johnwk]

Alright. Let me see how this would apply. Take 'welfare', literally meaning 'health, happiness and well-being'. So if the People are, in general, overweight, have high cholesterol etc, as evidenced by a high incidence of heart attacks and diabetes; then We, generally speaking, are not healthy. Thus, Congress is empowered to make laws to change this, and have passed laws which, utilizing tax penalties, will increase the number of people who will have access to healthcare and are thus 'providing for the general welfare.' Case closed?

To answer your question, let us first document the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” as it was understood by those who helped to frame and ratify our Constitution.

In Federalist No. 83, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."

Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95] [also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, your interpretation of the meaning of “general welfare” is not in harmony with the meaning as understood by our founding fathers when framing and ratifying our Constitution and to change its meaning, other than by a constitutional amendment to accommodate you personal predilections would violate a fundamental rule of constitutional law:

NOTE: Under the rules of constitutional construction
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as understood by our founding fathers.

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote

[LuvRPgrl]

only within the scope of the legal domains retained by the federal government rather than the states and the individual:



unless the constitution specifically asserts that Federal government law trumps that of states and individuals it doesn't. The states retain legal authority over the remaining legal domain that exceeds and supercedes that of the feds. Or at least that's how it was until the civil war. And there has been continual erosion of states rights since then.

which detracts absolutely nothing from hog breathes point of feds over states.

[ConHog]

only within the scope of the legal domains retained by the federal government rather than the states and the individual:



unless the constitution specifically asserts that Federal government law trumps that of states and individuals it doesn't. The states retain legal authority over the remaining legal domain that exceeds and supercedes that of the feds. Or at least that's how it was until the civil war. And there has been continual erosion of states rights since then.

Not true. You read the states retain such rights and such rights and think that means the federal government can't make laws and such, and that isn't the case at all.

The Constitution is a broad overview of the legal authority of the federal government and specifically says what it can NOT do, it is NOT so specific in regards to what it CAN do.

Take the DoE for example. I've seen MANY people claim that it is unconstitutional. The simple fact is, it is not. That doesn't mean it isn't a power hungry bureaucracy run amok, b/c certainly it is, but the idea of a federal agency that oversees the education system in the US is NOT unconstitutional. If it WERE you could point me to an exact spot in the COTUS that says "the feds can't do this" and neither the 9th nor the 10th Amendments cut it.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Maybe the most vague sentence in the entire history of man. I mean seriously, what the fuck does this even mean? Not even the most knowledgeable constitutional scholar can give a definitive answer on that one, why would the fathers have enumerated certain rights as being inviolate and then said "oh there might be others that can't be violated as well but we won't list them here?" One possible explanation, and one I believe,is that the founders meant for Congress to be able to by law define other rights that would have equal protection under the COTUS even though they are not enumerated in that document. Now notice I said congress, not the courts, and thus even though for example I believe abortions should be legal. I believe we need a federal law ( or state laws) making it so, not a court ruling. THAT is judicial activism. Which some people mistakenly believe is when a court rules on the constitutionality of a law. I wish people would learn the difference.

Congress has obviously not given you nor the states the right to not have a DoE, and it isn't forbidden by the document itself, so no it isn't unconstitutional.

What about the 10th?

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

Another Amendment that people misread. Notice the word nor in there? Unless the states collectively deny a power to the federal government, it isn't unconstitutional, and of course the states can't collectively deny a power delegated to the federal government by the COTUS.

Now why would the founding fathers have done this? Oh, that's right because they recognized that as the country grew so to would the need for the federal government to grow. Simply put, they recognized that something they wouldn't need the federal government to do in 1776 might be needed in 2012. They were brilliant men, so brilliant that they realized they couldn't POSSIBLY foresee every eventuality and so they built growth into the COTUS. They build flexibility into the COTUS.

Unfortunately they also made some errors, mainly in the language they used which has caused quite a bit of confusion over the years.

As to your remarks about the civil war. That's a tricky one.

Was it constitutional for the southern states to attempt to leave the union? Well, certainly there are no provisions for leaving the union in the COTUS itself, so if you believe literally that if it isn't written IN the COTUS it is unconstitutional, well then you have a problem the south shouldn't have attempted to secede.

On the other hand, was it constitutional for Lincoln to send in troops? Once again, it isn't mentioned specifically in the constitution one way or the other so you're in a pickle here if what the south did is constitutional then it follows that what Lincoln did must have been to.

My own personal opinion on the matter is that if a state wishes to withdraw from the union, what is stopping it from doing so?

[ConHog]

to answer your question, let us first document the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” as it was understood by those who helped to frame and ratify our constitution.

in federalist no. 83, hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. Hamilton writes:

"...the power of congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

madison, in no. 41 federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:



Likewise, in the virginia ratification convention madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 elliots 95] [also see nicholas, 3 elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]

similarly , george mason, in the virginia ratification convention informs the convention

"the congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the union, i grant. But i wish a clause in the constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 elliots 442]

for this very reason the tenth amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, your interpretation of the meaning of “general welfare” is not in harmony with the meaning as understood by our founding fathers when framing and ratifying our constitution and to change its meaning, other than by a constitutional amendment to accommodate you personal predilections would violate a fundamental rule of constitutional law:

Note: Under the rules of constitutional construction
16 am jur 2d constitutional law
meaning of language
ordinary meaning, generally

”words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) the court is not free to make the words or phrases in our constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as understood by our founding fathers.

Jwk

health care by consent of the governed (article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a supreme court's progressive majority vote



no one reads your cut and paste jobs

[johnwk]

this is what some of the anti federalist papers stated.they thought this language was far to broad and gave the federal gov't nearly unlimited powers.the federalist papers poo pooped that interpretation saying that the state legislatures and the general make up of the country, and truly representative leadership would not allow for that kind of interpretation or use. That the broad use of the certain general terms was rediculous.

You are absolutely correct! And so, if the Anti-Federalists feared the meaning of general welfare could be pointed to to expand the federal government’s powers without consent of the people, and, the Federalists assured that the phrase was tied to the specifically enumerated powers beneath the phrase and not to be expanded to include whatever the Congress may think proper, how can one conclude the phrase “general welfare” may be expanded beyond what neither the Federalists or Anti-Federalists intended? To do so would be to ignore what was unanimously agreed upon and violate the very intentions under which our Constitution was adopted, and in particular the Tenth Amendment‘s protection.

JWK

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

[johnwk]

Not true. You read the states retain such rights and such rights and think that means the federal government can't make laws and such, and that isn't the case at all.

The Constitution is a broad overview of the legal authority of the federal government and specifically says what it can NOT do, it is NOT so specific in regards to what it CAN do.

Take the DoE for example. I've seen MANY people claim that it is unconstitutional. The simple fact is, it is not. That doesn't mean it isn't a power hungry bureaucracy run amok, b/c certainly it is, but the idea of a federal agency that oversees the education system in the US is NOT unconstitutional. If it WERE you could point me to an exact spot in the COTUS that says "the feds can't do this" and neither the 9th nor the 10th Amendments cut it.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Maybe the most vague sentence in the entire history of man. I mean seriously, what the fuck does this even mean? Not even the most knowledgeable constitutional scholar can give a definitive answer on that one, why would the fathers have enumerated certain rights as being inviolate and then said "oh there might be others that can't be violated as well but we won't list them here?" One possible explanation, and one I believe,is that the founders meant for Congress to be able to by law define other rights that would have equal protection under the COTUS even though they are not enumerated in that document. Now notice I said congress, not the courts, and thus even though for example I believe abortions should be legal. I believe we need a federal law ( or state laws) making it so, not a court ruling. THAT is judicial activism. Which some people mistakenly believe is when a court rules on the constitutionality of a law. I wish people would learn the difference.

Congress has obviously not given you nor the states the right to not have a DoE, and it isn't forbidden by the document itself, so no it isn't unconstitutional.

What about the 10th?

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

Another Amendment that people misread. Notice the word nor in there? Unless the states collectively deny a power to the federal government, it isn't unconstitutional, and of course the states can't collectively deny a power delegated to the federal government by the COTUS.

Now why would the founding fathers have done this? Oh, that's right because they recognized that as the country grew so to would the need for the federal government to grow. Simply put, they recognized that something they wouldn't need the federal government to do in 1776 might be needed in 2012. They were brilliant men, so brilliant that they realized they couldn't POSSIBLY foresee every eventuality and so they built growth into the COTUS. They build flexibility into the COTUS

. Unfortunately they also made some errors, mainly in the language they used which has caused quite a bit of confusion over the years.

As to your remarks about the civil war. That's a tricky one.

Was it constitutional for the southern states to attempt to leave the union? Well, certainly there are no provisions for leaving the union in the COTUS itself, so if you believe literally that if it isn't written IN the COTUS it is unconstitutional, well then you have a problem the south shouldn't have attempted to secede.

On the other hand, was it constitutional for Lincoln to send in troops? Once again, it isn't mentioned specifically in the constitution one way or the other so you're in a pickle here if what the south did is constitutional then it follows that what Lincoln did must have been to.

My own personal opinion on the matter is that if a state wishes to withdraw from the union, what is stopping it from doing so?

You offer a whole lot of your personal opinions but nothing stated by the founding fathers to support your opinions. I guess that is why you attack my posts in which I provide our founding father’s expressed intentions .

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[revelarts]

The problem with Paul is classic idealism vs pragmatism.
He is simply too radical on many issues to win the election. Period, end of story.
He may feel better for not backing down from his ideals, but it prevents him from being able to implement any of them.

That issue effect all of us who are active in the political process.
There are times when its a tough call, but other times when it aint even close, and Paul is one of those that aint even close.

So what do we do, aside from Paul, to move toward the not the the Literal academic Interpretation of the Constitution to its literal Application?
seriously
there some passion about it here what do we do?

[LuvRPgrl]

So what do we do, aside from Paul, to move toward the not the the Literal academic Interpretation of the Constitution to its literal Application?
seriously
there some passion about it here what do we do?

unfortunately, at this point, I think the tide is unstoppable. Its inevitable in all successful organizations/govts. Sucess is born in conservatism, and killed in liberalism.

But, pragmatically speaking, I would advise him to not be so radical on his foreign policy.

[ConHog]

You offer a whole lot of your personal opinions but nothing stated by the founding fathers to support your opinions. I guess that is why you attack my posts in which I provide our founding father’s expressed intentions .

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

what part of I don't read cut and pastes don't you get? I didn't attack the content of your post. I merely stated that no one read it. I'm sure no one is a bit extreme, but most don't read posts a mile long that have been cut fand pasted from other sources.

[loosecannon]

BALONEY, Yea, it was radical. All ideas evolve from other previous ones, but in this case, they took it to a radical new level that didnt exist anywhere and was quite controversial.




More baloney, it was settled, its called the current Constitution, thats why they agreed to sign it into law.

More baloney. The civil war happened because of one issue the FF's didnt want to address at the time, because it was too big to deal with without causing the entire thing to fall apart. It is similiar to the idealism vs pragmatism in my post above. The ff's who wanted slavery abolished simply decided it was too much to ask for at the time, PRECISELY BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY DEALING WITH A RADICAL NEW CONCEPT.


EVEN MORE BALONEY. There are constitutionalists, and there are those who dont want it to be the reigning document of the land because it doesnty give THEM, enough power, so they come up with the bullshit propaganda lies to influence the ignorant and stupid of the masses to allow them to circumvent the COTUS. and they have done well.
THEY know full well what it means, but they claim otherwise cuz making things blurry is to their advantage.








not every, only some.




Nope, the concept that fed usurped state power was there even before the signing. Otherwise, why bother writing it.
It seems as though you are one who wants it to say something different and then claim it doesnt mean what it says, it means what "I want it to mean".

we will just have to disagree about all the bolded phrases above.

FWIW the civil war was fought over the looming possibility that the federal government might infringe on the states then current dominion over laws that permitted slavery ( something gravely at odds with the Bill of Rights and all those fairly tale notions that the founders were trying to establish radical individual liberties) by the inclusion of Kansas into the union as a state. It was becoming increasingly likely that a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery would be passed (which proves your argument wrong, btw):


Almost all the inter-regional crises involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise) and a twenty-year extension of the African slave trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_slave_trade) in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The 1793 invention of the cotton gin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin) by Eli Whitney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Whitney) increased by fiftyfold the quantity of cotton that could be processed in a day and greatly increased the demand for slave labor in the South.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-trager-16) There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri) to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise) of 1820. A gag rule prevented discussion in Congress of petitions for ending slavery from 1835–1844, while Manifest Destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny) became an argument for gaining new territories, where slavery could expand. The acquisition of Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas) as a slave state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_state) in 1845 along with territories won as a result of the Mexican–American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War) (1846–1848) resulted in the Compromise of 1850 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-democracy-17) The Wilmot Proviso (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmot_Proviso) was an attempt by Northern politicians to exclude slavery from the territories conquered from Mexico. The extremely popular anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom%27s_Cabin) (1852) by Harriet Beecher Stowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Beecher_Stowe) greatly increased Northern opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-mcpherson3-18)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-representatives-19)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/John_Brown%2C_The_Martyr.jpg/170px-John_Brown%2C_The_Martyr.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Brown,_The_Martyr.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.18/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Brown,_The_Martyr.jpg)
John Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29) being adored by an enslaved mother and child as he walks to his execution on December 2, 1859.


The 1854 Ostend Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto) was an unsuccessful Southern attempt to annex Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba) as a slave state. The Second Party System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Party_System) broke down after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas-Nebraska_Act) in 1854, which replaced the Missouri Compromise ban on slavery with popular sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty), allowing the people of a territory to vote for or against slavery. The Bleeding Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas) controversy over the status of slavery in the Kansas Territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Territory) included massive vote fraud perpetrated by Missouri pro-slavery Border Ruffians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Ruffian). Vote fraud led pro-South Presidents Franklin Pierce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Pierce) and James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) to attempt to admit Kansas as a slave state. Buchanan supported the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecompton_Constitution).[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-impending-20)
Violence over the status of slavery in Kansas erupted with the Wakarusa War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakarusa_War),[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-impending4-21) the Sacking of Lawrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacking_of_Lawrence),[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-impending5-22) the caning of Republican Charles Sumner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks#Sumner_assault) by the Southerner Preston Brooks,[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-butterfield-23)[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-impending6-24) the Pottawatomie Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottawatomie_Massacre),[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-impending7-25) the Battle of Black Jack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Black_Jack), the Battle of Osawatomie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Osawatomie) and the Marais des Cygnes massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marais_des_Cygnes_massacre). The 1857 Supreme Court Dred Scott decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) allowed slavery in the territories even where the majority opposed slavery, including Kansas.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_debates_of_1858) included Northern Democratic leader Stephen A. Douglas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_A._Douglas)' Freeport Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeport_Doctrine). This doctrine was an argument for thwarting the Dred Scott decision that, along with Douglas' defeat of the Lecompton Constitution, divided the Democratic Party between North and South. Northern abolitionist John Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_%28abolitionist%29)'s raid at Harpers Ferry Armory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpers_Ferry_Armory) was an attempt to incite slave insurrections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_insurrection) in 1859.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-impending8-26) The North-South split in the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party) in 1860 due to the Southern demand for a slave code for the territories completed polarization of the nation between North and South.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/James_Hopkinsons_Plantation_Slaves_Planting_Sweet_ Potatoes.jpg/220px-James_Hopkinsons_Plantation_Slaves_Planting_Sweet_ Potatoes.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Hopkinsons_Plantation_Slaves_Planting_S weet_Potatoes.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.18/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Hopkinsons_Plantation_Slaves_Planting_S weet_Potatoes.jpg)
James Hopkinson's Plantation. Planting sweet potatoes. ca. 1862/63.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg/170px-Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg ) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.18/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg )
Scars of whipped slave. This famous 1863 photo was distributed by abolitionists to illustrate what they saw as the barbarism of Southern society.[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-google9-27) The victim likely suffered from keloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keloid), according to Kathleen Collins, making the scars more prominent and extensive.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-photography-28)


Support for secession was strongly correlated to the number of plantations in the region.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-secessionist-29) States of the Deep South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_South), which had the greatest concentration of plantations, were the first to secede. The upper South slave states of Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia), North Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina), Arkansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas), and Tennessee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee) had fewer plantations and rejected secession until the Fort Sumter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter) crisis forced them to choose sides. Border states had fewer plantations still and never seceded.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-mcpherson10-30)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-impending11-31)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Slavery

You keep on believing all those myths about the civil war and the constitution. You probably even believe that the Civil war was fought because the north wanted to outlaw slavery. While in reality Lincoln was completely in favor of slavery and didn't consider black people to be human. And the emancipation proclamation was very unpopular in the North. But several years into the war the north finally was convinced to outlaw slavery simply because they thought it would help them win the war. Largely because Generals Sherman and Grant convinced Lincoln that it would. Lincoln wanted to win the war so he went along and reversed his lifelong positions.


The causes of the Civil War were complex, and have been controversial since the war began. The issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism), who have tried to improve the image of the South by lessening the role of slavery.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-4) Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. Following Lincoln's victory, many Southern whites felt that disunion had become their only option.

While not all Southerners saw themselves as fighting to preserve slavery, most of the officers and over a third of the rank and file in Lee's army had close family ties to slavery. To Northerners, in contrast, the motivation was primarily to preserve the Union, not to abolish slavery.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-5) Abraham Lincoln consistently made preserving the Union the central goal of the war, though he increasingly saw slavery as a crucial issue and made ending it an additional goal.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-6) Lincoln's decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation angered both Peace Democrats ("Copperheads") and War Democrats, but energized most Republicans.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-7) By warning that free blacks would flood the North, Democrats made gains in the 1862 elections, but they did not gain control of Congress. The Republicans' counterargument that slavery was the mainstay of the enemy steadily gained support, with the Democrats crushed at the 1863 elections in Ohio when they tried to resurrect anti-black sentiment.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#cite_note-8)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession

The emancipation proclamation only applied to the central southern states while the border states and New Orleans were exempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_proclamation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emancipation_Proclamation.PNG

[johnwk]

what part of I don't read cut and pastes don't you get? I didn't attack the content of your post. I merely stated that no one read it. I'm sure no one is a bit extreme, but most don't read posts a mile long that have been cut fand pasted from other sources.

What I "get" from what you wrote above is that you object to my quoting [cut and pasting] our founding fathers own words expressing the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and, you are not interested in reading their words.

BTW, my “sources” are historical records such as Madison’s Notes, the Federalist Papers, Elliot’s Debates, etc.

JWK

[ConHog]

we will just have to disagree about all the bolded phrases above.

FWIW the civil war was fought over the looming possibility that the federal government might infringe on the states then current dominion over laws that permitted slavery ( something gravely at odds with the Bill of Rights and all those fairly tale notions that the founders were trying to establish radical individual liberties) by the inclusion of Kansas into the union as a state. It was becoming increasingly likely that a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery would be passed (which proves your argument wrong, btw):



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Slavery

You keep on believing all those myths about the civil war and the constitution. You probably even believe that the Civil war was fought because the north wanted to outlaw slavery. While in reality Lincoln was completely in favor of slavery and didn't consider black people to be human. And the emancipation proclamation was very unpopular in the North. But several years into the war the north finally was convinced to outlaw slavery simply because they thought it would help them win the war. Largely because Generals Sherman and Grant convinced Lincoln that it would. Lincoln wanted to win the war so he went along and reversed his lifelong positions.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession

The emancipation proclamation only applied to the central southern states while the border states and New Orleans were exempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_proclamation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emancipation_Proclamation.PNG

This is for another thread, but the Civil War was completely over slavery. Sure Lincoln would have been willing to make a deal concerning slavery, but he didn't wield enough influence in Congress to make it happen. Slavery was THE instigator for the Civil War and all this hooh hah about "states rights" is bullshit added after the fact by Southerners who rightly feel guilty about their grandparents slavery.

The Civil War was completely about slavery. Even a cursory understanding of our history bears that out.

[ConHog]

What I "get" from what you wrote above is that you object to my quoting [cut and pasting] our founding fathers own words expressing the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, and, you are not interested in reading their words.

JWK

I'm not interested in reading a mile long block of quotes from them posted by you with little to no opinion of your own. No. I can google that shit if that's all I want to read.

[revelarts]

what part of I don't read cut and pastes don't you get? I didn't attack the content of your post. I merely stated that no one read it. I'm sure no one is a bit extreme, but most don't read posts a mile long that have been cut fand pasted from other sources.

Please don't assume to speak for me Con i read it all.
Great Quotes JWK.:clap:

[loosecannon]

This is for another thread, but the Civil War was completely over slavery. Sure Lincoln would have been willing to make a deal concerning slavery, but he didn't wield enough influence in Congress to make it happen. Slavery was THE instigator for the Civil War and all this hooh hah about "states rights" is bullshit added after the fact by Southerners who rightly feel guilty about their grandparents slavery.

The Civil War was completely about slavery. Even a cursory understanding of our history bears that out.

First of all the emancipation proclamation was a PRESIDENTIAL proclamation, not an act of congress.

Second of all the war wasn't about slavery. It was about the inclusion of new states that would provide for a monopoly of the northern states over the southern states and a federal confiscation of existing state powers. Slavery was not the issue it was just the topic that the issue manifest around.

As the articles stated the Northerners were not opposed to slavery, nor was Lincoln. And the emancipation proclamation didn't liberate slaves in nearly half of the slave states anyway. It merely targeted the heart of the south.

Since you won't take the time to read any information other's present discussion with you is a lot like arguing with a wall.

You should spend a lot more time reading history and a lot less time pretending to be informed.

Just saying.

[revelarts]

we will just have to disagree about all the bolded phrases above.

FWIW the civil war was fought over the looming possibility that the federal government might infringe on the states then current dominion over laws that permitted slavery ( something gravely at odds with the Bill of Rights and all those fairly tale notions that the founders were trying to establish radical individual liberties) by the inclusion of Kansas into the union as a state. It was becoming increasingly likely that a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery would be passed (which proves your argument wrong, btw):.....

sorry ConHogs more right here,

I agree that the states should have had the right to secede I just don't believe that ever would have if it wasn't over the question of slavery.
Yes the north was just as bigoted as the south in many ways if not more so in some areas. ( I don't think either deserved an award in that department) and yes there were some slave areas left in the north at the beginning of the war.
BUT When we read the confederates primary document, it's Constitution, the MAIN distinction it has from the the U.S. Constitution is it's CLEAR stance on slavery. It is practically Identical to the U.S. Constitution in every other way, except for SLAVERY. There are a few minor items about rivers and small technical gov't rules items but NO clarification of STATE RIGHTS or tariffs or taxes or any of the other items people assert were the real reasons for the war. If I'm wrong please show me in the confederate constitution.

Also when Jefferson Davis made his final speech to Congress he didn't mention any issue as the reason but the questions of race and slavery. And as I mentioned, that the states do have a right to secede but the reason that Mississippi was seceding was over the divergent views on slavery, and black citizenship.



...It has been a conviction of pressing necessity -- it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.




If the problems were other issues why didn't he mention any of them? Why did he say it was Race and Slavery?

But as ConHog Said it's really for another thread

[johnwk]

So what do we do, aside from Paul, to move toward the not the the Literal academic Interpretation of the Constitution to its literal Application? seriouslythere some passion about it here what do we do?

It seems quite clear we need to elect those who will promote a national environment in which new wealth can be created. Currently, our federal government is stifling the creation of new wealth in every State in the Union with countless regulations that violate the defined and limited powers granted to Congress. Additionally, existing federal taxation which violates the very principles under which our Constitution’s original tax plan was formulated to encourage a productive economy is literally forcing America’s once thriving industries, businesses and manufactures to leave America. And this does not even take into consideration a corruptible and dishonest monetary system which has made a private banking institution’s notes a LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, in spite of our founders expressed intentions to forbid Notes of any kind to be made a legal tender.

The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers intended the market place, and only the market place, to determine what notes, if any, were safe and proper to accept in payment of debt, and they specifically chose to forbid folks in government from making a particular bank note, or any “note” a legal tender, which if allowed would not only create a corruptible and evil money monopoly, but literally force people and business owners to accept a money monopoly’s worthless script in payment of debt which is a parasitic virus that has historically allowed dishonest bankers and governments to plunder the wealth created by businesses and labor.

Until our federal government’s heavy regulatory hand is severed from its body, and honest money and taxation is re-instituted as agreed upon by our founders, there will be no change in America’s rapid decline because the tools of oppression will remain in Congress’ hands and will cleverly be used to plunder what America’s businesses, industries, manufactures and labor have produced. As of now, I see no candidate promoting a return to the wisdom of our founding fathers which, when followed, created the environment for America to become the economic marvel of the world.

JWK

"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.

[loosecannon]

sorry ConHogs more right here,

I agree that the states should have had the right to secede I just don't believe that ever would have if it wasn't over the question of slavery.
Yes the north was just as bigoted as the south in many ways if not more so in some areas. ( I don't think either deserved an award in that department) and yes there were some slave areas left in the north at the beginning of the war.
BUT When we read the confederates primary document, it's Constitution, the MAIN distinction it has from the the U.S. Constitution is it's CLEAR stance on slavery. It is practically Identical to the U.S. Constitution in every other way, except for SLAVERY. There are a few minor items about rivers and small technical gov't rules items but NO clarification of STATE RIGHTS or tariffs or taxes or any of the other items people assert were the real reasons for the war. If I'm wrong please show me in the confederate constitution.

Also when Jefferson Davis made his final speech to Congress he didn't mention any issue as the reason but the questions of race and slavery. And as I mentioned, that the states do have a right to secede but the reason that Mississippi was seceding was over the divergent views on slavery, and black citizenship.


If the problems were other issues why didn't he mention any of them? Why did he say it was Race and Slavery?

But as ConHog Said it's really for another thread

Unfortunately you are not answering the question asked. If the question had been what "were the South's reasons for secession" you would be correct. But since the question asked was "what was the cause of the civil war" your answer is at best half right. But the underlying reason was the same as the early mistrusts of the new federal system that existed since the const convention. The south rightfully feared that the North would dominate the democratic process and legislate in their own self interests at the expense of the south. Co opting more original states rights under the authority of the feds was just aspect in which the war was NOT fought over slavery. Besides nearly every scholar on the civil war recognizes economic concerns as the core cause of the war, in which case slavery is just a tangent to the core issue. Without slavery the south would be impoverished, marginalized and relegated to becoming subscribers to the Yankee agenda in DC.

My Great Great Grand Dad was an Admiral in the Confederate Navy and after the war he went on to become a law professor at what later became Ole Miss. He also wrote an acclaimed book about the root causes of the war and that the aggression of the North was illegal.

I will continue to rely on his first hand accounts while you busy yourself revising history. If that's cool with you?

[LuvRPgrl]

we will just have to disagree about all the bolded phrases above.
those are facts, not opinions.




FWIW the civil war was fought over the looming possibility that the federal government might infringe on the states then current dominion over laws that permitted slaveryIts not worth anything to post info that simply isnt true.
Laws that permitted what? SLAVERY?



( something gravely at odds with the Bill of Rights and all those fairly tale notions that the founders were trying to establish radical individual liberties)
DOI, ADDresses individual rights as well as colonial. The COTUS specifically declares PEOPLE have the right to be secure in their homes.....PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS, CITIZENS


by the inclusion of Kansas into the union as a state. R U saying the North didnt want Kansas in the union at all,?


They didnt differ on if Kansas should be able to become a State, but if SLAVERY could be legal in the state.):
If what could become legal? SLAVERY?


It was becoming increasingly likely that a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery would be passed (which proves your argument wrong, btw):
prohibiting what? SLAVERY?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Slavery

You keep on believing all those myths about the civil war and the constitution. You probably even believe that the Civil war was fought because the north wanted to outlaw slavery. OUTLAW WHAT? SLAVERY?


While in reality Lincoln was completely in favor of slavery and didn't consider black people to be human.
In favor of what? SLAVERY?


And the emancipation proclamation was very unpopular in the North. But several years into the war the north finally was convinced to outlaw slavery simply because they thought it would help them win the war.[/QUOTE]
Outlaw what? SLAVERY?


Largely because Generals Sherman and Grant convinced Lincoln that it would. Lincoln wanted to win the war so he went along and reversed his lifelong positions. Lifelong posistions on what? SLAVERY?





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession

The emancipation proclamation only applied to the central southern states while the border states and New Orleans were exempt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_proclamation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emancipation_Proclamation.PNG Only applied what? SLAVERY?

You see a recurring theme there?
and you dont even say WHAT the issue was, if not slavery.
And, kinda odd that all the slave states were on one side, and non slave states on the other> ohhh, there is that nagging word again SLAVERY

[revelarts]

Unfortunately you are not answering the question asked. If the question had been what "were the South's reasons for secession" you would be correct. But since the question asked was "what was the cause of the civil war" your answer is at best half right. But the underlying reason was the same as the early mistrusts of the new federal system that existed since the const convention. The south rightfully feared that the North would dominate the democratic process and legislate in their own self interests at the expense of the south. Co opting more original states rights under the authority of the feds was just aspect in which the war was NOT fought over slavery. Besides nearly every scholar on the civil war recognizes economic concerns as the core cause of the war, in which case slavery is just a tangent to the core issue. Without slavery the south would be impoverished, marginalized and relegated to becoming subscribers to the Yankee agenda in DC.

My Great Great Grand Dad was an Admiral in the Confederate Navy and after the war he went on to become a law professor at what later became Ole Miss. He also wrote an acclaimed book about the root causes of the war and that the aggression of the North was illegal.

I will continue to rely on his first hand accounts while you busy yourself revising history. If that's cool with you?
the confederate constitution and Jefferson Davis's farwell speach are 1st hand what are talking about?
and your own post negates your point. the Econimic of Slavery was the cause of the war for the south. They couldnot see a way out of it and refused to give it up. Morals were subject to money, capitalism over ethics. Money as the root of all evil. the evil of American slavery in this case. Slavery=money so money was the cause of the war suuure. So slavery was not the "reeeeal cause" riiight. !Cough!

Read every Original Session doucument from the southern states and it will talk about Slavery. Some in an extremely pointed way, others in a more round about tone but Slavery was THE issue each state FIXED on. States right were the side line and ancillary issue the legal tool to KEEP slavery, the PRIMARY issue of concern. Now the north didn't go into the war to "free the slaves" but the south sure succeeded and KNEW it would CAUSE A WAR to fight for the "right" to own slaves.
The issue is more nuacned than 8th grade text books make out but your the revisionist not me.

[LuvRPgrl]

Please don't assume to speak for me Con i read it all.
Great Quotes JWK.:clap:

Sorry Rev, it says, MOST dont read all of it, which includes me. I didnt start reading that block of words cuz Im not ready to take a nap yet.:laugh:

[loosecannon]

the confederate constitution and Jefferson Davis's farwell speach are 1st hand what are talking about?


so you believe what presidents say in their farewell addresses.....
Then you probably believe that we invaded Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan because those sand buggers on donkeys and camels pose some kind of existential threat to the US. Since both Bush and Obama have both said that.

And you probably also believe that our civil rights are being eroded to protect us from the mean nasty AQ squad. Because again Bush and Obama both say so.


the Econimic of Slavery was the cause of the war for the south.

Thanks you, the south fought the war over econo0mics while the North fought it to preserve the union while neither the north or the south fought the civil war over slavery.

And Jefferson Davis did what politicians do best, which is to lie about their real intentions.

[ConHog]

Get a load of this BS. "The south didn't start the civil war over slavery, they started it over the economics of slavery"

This IS slavery.

[LuvRPgrl]

so you believe what presidents say in their farewell addresses.....
Then you probably believe that we invaded Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan because those sand buggers on donkeys and camels pose some kind of existential threat to the US. Since both Bush and Obama have both said that..
You need to do some homework on REV before you make such ignorant statements.



And you probably also believe that our civil rights are being eroded to protect us from the mean nasty AQ squad. Because again Bush and Obama both say so..

Well,he and I both do, but not for the reason you give.




Thanks you, the south fought the war over econo0mics while the North fought it to preserve the union while neither the north or the south fought the civil war over slavery. .
and what exactly was going to cause economic problems? Oh, let me answer that for you, cuz you wont do it knowing full well the truthful answer will show you are blatantly wrong.
SLAVERY,,,,oh, that nagging little word again.




And Jefferson Davis did what politicians do best, which is to lie about their real intentions.

Which is meaningless, it doesnt prove he lied at that time, and you certainly did use political statements to support your side, so they only lie when supporting someone elses pov, but not when they support yours?

FACT of the matter is racists today want to rewrite history as to why the civil war was fought, so it gives less importance to the black community as a peoples.

[loosecannon]

You need to do some homework on REV before you make such ignorant statements.




Well,he and I both do, but not for the reason you give.




and what exactly was going to cause economic problems? Oh, let me answer that for you, cuz you wont do it knowing full well the truthful answer will show you are blatantly wrong.
SLAVERY,,,,oh, that nagging little word again.





Which is meaningless, it doesnt prove he lied at that time, and you certainly did use political statements to support your side, so they only lie when supporting someone elses pov, but not when they support yours?

FACT of the matter is racists today want to rewrite history as to why the civil war was fought, so it gives less importance to the black community as a peoples.

epic fail. You can't change reality by wishing that it were different.

The war was not fought over slavery, neither the North (whom we all agree fought the war for other reasons) nor the South went to war over slavery. Esp since slavery hadn't even been challenged yet. And even if it had been it was a secondary concern according to your own accounts.

Learn to stop arguing when you have reached an impasse from which your argument can not prevail.

[loosecannon]

Get a load of this BS. "The south didn't start the civil war over slavery, they started it over the economics of slavery"

This IS slavery.

the nuance may evade you, but "the economics of slavery" are economics first and foremost and "of slavery" only coincidentally. If the war had been fought over the economics of unions or the economics of right to work laws it would still have been an economic issue first and the details would have been tangential.

[revelarts]

the nuance may evade you, but "the economics of slavery" are economics first and foremost and "of slavery" only coincidentally. If the war had been fought over the economics of unions or the economics of right to work laws it would still have been an economic issue first and the details would have been tangential.

Amazing , look I don't know you well enough to know what your motives are, Southern/family pride , race, or whatever but WOW, you've got a POV and your stickin to it, Fact be dang. Slavery was a "side" or "coincidental" issue.
What we have above is called denial.

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America effectively only made changes, clarifications and ADDITIONS on the Slave issue. not the commerce issue or economic issue or tax issues

Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights
1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition
1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.
3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States....


A sample of Cuases of Secession this is from South Carolina

...In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof. 

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. 

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. 

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. 
...

Lincoln's Inaugural address says he didn't want war or to affect slavery but ... um he ended up doing both. But the Idea of WAR was a given, everyone Knew it would come to that when the secessions started... over slavery.

[pegwinn]

It wasn't a radical idea, just the existing philosophies of Locke, Rouseau, and John Adams:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_state_constitution

And the meanings of the constitution were never settled and the diversity of opinions led directly to the civil war. There are still Federalists and strict constitutionalists who disagree broadly about what the document means.

It was a radical idea because no one had done more than pontificate on the subject. It was settled by the ratification. And if you think the civil war was only about slavery or states rights alone, then you need a history book. The civil war alone would consume more bandwidth than we likely have here. Disagreeing broadly might be what this thread is about.

You've said nothing of your own opinion or philosophy.


A LOT of people make that mistake but nothing could be further from the truth.

No mistake. You alluded, I specified.


The bill of rights was added mainly to preserve unto the states the authority to determine what rights and powers the states and the individual would retain within each state. And of course to prevent the federal government from usurping rights from the individual.

But everybody who signed agreed to a multi tiered spectrum of rights that afforded rights in different measure to each class of citizen or resident:

>free men who owned property and had birthright citizenship
>free men who had birthright citizenship
>non free men who had birthright citizenship
>women
>children
>non citizen residents and diplomats
>indians

There is simply no truth whatsoever that the bill of rights was included in the document because the founders intended to guarantee equal rights and liberties to all, or even to any. It was included only to prevent the federal government from trampling the liberties of citizens of the states. No provisions were included to prevent the states from trampling people's liberties. And it wasn't until many decades had passed before the notion that Federal law trumped state law came into currency.

The biggest reason for the bill of rights according to my HS history / civics class was the refusal of certain influential states to ratify the document if it were missing them. But, feel free to post comprehensive proof of your assertion. It will make interesting reading. When you source your claim, please source the "everybody who signed agreed to a ...." separately. I'd be very interested in seeing this agreement.

I noticed you have either voted "present" or abstained from answering the questions I asked of you.

[loosecannon]

Amazing , look I don't know you well enough to know what your motives are, Southern/family pride , race, or whatever but WOW, you've got a POV and your stickin to it, Fact be dang. Slavery was a "side" or "coincidental" issue.
What we have above is called denial.

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America effectively only made changes, clarifications and ADDITIONS on the Slave issue. not the commerce issue or economic issue or tax issues


A sample of Cuases of Secession this is from South Carolina


Lincoln's Inaugural address says he didn't want war or to affect slavery but ... um he ended up doing both. But the Idea of WAR was a given, everyone Knew it would come to that when the secessions started... over slavery.

epic fail! You have formed your opinion and you will NOT let reality change it.

You go girl!

The Civil war was still fought over state's rights vs fed rights that persevered since the constitutional conventions began, economic issues and preservation of the union. Slavery was just a coincidental issue, hardly a cause for war.

[loosecannon]

there
It was a radical idea because no one had done more than pontificate on the subject. It was settled by the ratification. And if you think the civil war was only about slavery or states rights alone, then you need a history book. The civil war alone would consume more bandwidth than we likely have here. Disagreeing broadly might be what this thread is about.

but everything radical about the new union was never actualized even in theory.


You've said nothing of your own opinion or philosophy.

how seriously can I take a thread that assumes that is A right way and other wrong ways of reading the constitution? The thread premise is an exercise in futility and ego.




No mistake. You alluded, I specified.

and you made a classic mistake.




The biggest reason for the bill of rights according to my HS history / civics class was the refusal of certain influential states to ratify the document if it were missing them. But, feel free to post comprehensive proof of your assertion. It will make interesting reading. When you source your claim, please source the "everybody who signed agreed to a ...." separately. I'd be very interested in seeing this agreement.

exactly, without the 9th and 10th amendments, those that specifically retained rights to the states and limited the power of the federal government the southern states refused to play.


I noticed you have either voted "present" or abstained from answering the questions I asked of you.

I can't take your thread seriously. You have no idea how the constitution should be read. You have your opinions and philosophies but there is no way in hell any thinking person is going to take them seriously.

Your opinions simply do not count.

Thousands of truly great minds have treated the subject and thousands more will. Your opinions probably rank in the middle of 400 million opinions history will never acknowledge or respect.

BTW what are your opinions about quantum physics, the theory of relativity, the two slit experiment, the Einstein-Bohrs debates, and gravity? Nobody cares what you reply, but I was just asking since you seem to think we should care what you think. We don't.

I realize that you take yourself seriously and that may betray some actual sincerity on your part. But it probably doesn't. More than likely it betrays a pervasive denial on your part and an interest in reinforcing your own bias achieved by your pretending to participate in an intellectual debate.

Which is all cool, whatever gets you through the night.

[pegwinn]

The Constitution is a broad overview of the legal authority of the federal government and specifically says what it can NOT do, it is NOT so specific in regards to what it CAN do.

With respect I must disagree. The Constitution is a specific document that limits the power of Congress to specific actions. See Art I, Sec 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8)


The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Just because they listed some they did not list every right of the people. Very broad. It is directive (shall not be construed) in that they cannot deny rights even if not listed.

So if you want to walk down the street butt naked smokin a big ol stogie and a carrying a samurai sword..... go for it. Just don't infringe on others rights when you do.


What about the 10th?

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

Another Amendment that people misread. Notice the word nor in there? Unless the states collectively deny a power to the federal government, it isn't unconstitutional, and of course the states can't collectively deny a power delegated to the federal government by the COTUS.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, Art I Sec 9 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9)

nor prohibited by it to the States, Art I Sec 10 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec10)

are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
So Everything in Art 1 Sec 9 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9) and anything not in Article I Section 8 or Article I Sec 10 is explicitly to the States or People.

Your example of the DOE could be argued under the Commerce Clause in Art I Section 8. I don't like it but the literal words tell me to shut up and live by my philosophy even if it is biting me in the ass.

[pegwinn]

how seriously can I take a thread that assumes that is A right way and other wrong ways of reading the constitution? The thread premise is an exercise in futility and ego.

Interesting. Go back and re-read the OP. I was asking for everyone else's take. I started it with mine. I don't mind people debating my style of interpretation because I aint conceited, I'm convinced. But, my interest in what's rolling around inside your head is genuine. Even if in a morbidly fascinated sort of way.


I can't take your thread seriously. You have no idea how the constitution should be read. You have your opinions and philosophies but there is no way in hell any thinking person is going to take them seriously.

First you accuse me of ego for assuming there is a right way and then you say I have no idea. Pot, Kettle, etc. Oops.


Your opinions simply do not count.

First literally correct thing you have said so far. Welcome to the club and leave your coat in the closet. Bars open.


Thousands of truly great minds have treated the subject and thousands more will. Your opinions probably rank in the middle of 400 million opinions history will never acknowledge or respect.

Starting to sound like a disgruntled realization you are having about yourself and you feel the need for company. Oh well. Therapy might help.


...but I was just asking since you seem to think we should care what you think. We don't.

I realize that you take yourself seriously and that may betray some actual sincerity on your part. But it probably doesn't. More than likely it betrays a pervasive denial on your part and an interest in reinforcing your own bias achieved by your pretending to participate in an intellectual debate.

Which is all cool, whatever gets you through the night.

Heh. Don't hold back. It is gooooood (so the witch doctors say) to get it out of your system. Just remember that I have asked, politely, for your opinions etc. And, since you post frequently I guess we are still in the same club pretending to participate in an intellectual debate. Bar is still open.

[LuvRPgrl]

:
the nuance may evade you, but "the economics of slavery" are economics first and foremost and "of slavery" only coincidentally. If the war had been fought over the economics of unions or the economics of right to work laws it would still have been an economic issue first and the details would have been tangential.or

OK, so Obama's poor ratings on his performance are NOT based on :
unemployment rate, but rather economics
poor GDP,, but rather economics
Huge debt but rather economics
lackluster housing market, but rather, economics
Huge #of foreclosures, but rather , economics


So, once again, you have deluded yourself into believing the war was fought over what?
Ya know what? Im psychic, I predict, you wont answer the question !

Dont let the facts kick you in the ass on your way out the door.

[LuvRPgrl]

there

but everything radical about the new union was never actualized even in theory. . LIE




how seriously can I take a thread that assumes that is A right way and other wrong ways of reading the constitution? The thread premise is an exercise in futility and ego. .
No right or wrong way, yet it is still a hotly debated topic, go figure.






and you made a classic mistake. .
expecting an intelligent response from you? Yea, truly an epic failure






exactly, without the 9th and 10th amendments, those that specifically retained rights to the states and limited the power of the federal government the southern states refused to play. .
again oh brainless one, you have no clue. If even HOGbreath is winning a debate against you, then you are seriously in trouble.




I can't take your thread seriously. You have no idea how the constitution should be read..
And yet you claimed there is no right way and wrong way.


You have your opinions and philosophies but there is no way in hell any thinking person is going to take them seriously. .
well, you certainly wouldnt know from personal experience.



Your opinions simply do not count..opinion = vote = counts


Thousands of truly great minds have treated the subject and thousands more will. Your opinions probably rank in the middle of 400 million opinions history will never acknowledge or respect. .
and yours? right there in the middle also, if your lucky. And yet you blather away.....


BTW what are your opinions about quantum physics, the theory of relativity, the two slit experiment, the Einstein-Bohrs debates, and gravity? .
My OPINON of them is that they are serious topics and can make great changes in our lives if they are correctly figured out.
My other opinion is, you dont need a PHD in physics to understand politics.

[QUOTE=loosecannon;514405]Nobody cares what you reply, but I was just asking since you seem to think we should care what you think. We don't. [QUOTE=loosecannon;514405] We??? try again

]

[logroller]

NOt only does it not justify it, but it isnt even the best thing.
What happens is simple. People want some change, It isnt happening fast enough. They do an end run on the COTUS, citing its for the greater good, its gonna save lives, etc, etc. What they dont acknowledge is there are other ways of accomplishing the same thing, better ways. But their thirst for power is too great, they cant wait.
.....They use propaganda and other avenues, judicial activism, etc to get what they want through federal action, even though it is unconstitutional, but because of the "dire emergency", the people allow it.

Problem is, it sets up a precedent. It will , as it always does, come back to bite them in the ass for stomping on the COTUS.
Ultimately it makes the COTUS a useless document. As it has done. Because it was suppose to be a temporary one time thing because of an emergency, just like many taxes are suppose to be temporary until a crisis is over, but it never happens. It always stays in place.

The crown jewels of anti democracy, anti Constitutionalists, is "emminent domain." EVEN most of those who supported federal intervention in many issues, are crying about the immenent domain ruling.
Its just a matter of time, DC is like a black hole, power goes one way, it sucks it in. The STates have nmo way to fight back.

Regarding eminent domain and the Kelo v ruling, its important to remember the city/state instigated the taking, and not the feds. With that said, and right on subject with something coming back to bite one in the ass, last I checked Kelo's property sits vacant. As testament to the intrinsic genius in our Constitution and the government it set in motion, the broad nature of its wording and complex system of processes makes it rather difficult to actually do anything; and when it does, whatever reasons or problems which had instigated the action, have been vacated or otherwise resolved through free-will.


To answer your question, let us first document the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” as it was understood by those who helped to frame and ratify our Constitution.

In Federalist No. 83, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“. Hamilton writes:

"...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:



Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95] [also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]

Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

And so, your interpretation of the meaning of “general welfare” is not in harmony with the meaning as understood by our founding fathers when framing and ratifying our Constitution and to change its meaning, other than by a constitutional amendment to accommodate you personal predilections would violate a fundamental rule of constitutional law:

NOTE: Under the rules of constitutional construction
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) The Court is not free to make the words or phrases in our Constitution mean whatever they so desire, but are confined to their original understanding as understood by our founding fathers.

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote

State laws exist which make medical care open to all regardless of whether one can pay for it. Are these laws unconstitutional?

If I go to another state and need medical care, but my insurance is from another state, do they need to accept it-- what laws apply? Isn't there a federal interest? Is this not a commercial interest of the Federal government? In one state they may have a cap on what an emergency room visit will cost; but in another state there may be a different cap, or none at all. What if my insurance caps the charges for a procedure? Typically, insurances and providers strike agreements, often extending beyond state lines. What if they can't come to an agreement, or one violates that agreement; obviously, there is a federal commerce interest in play with regards to healthcare. When grievances arise, costs go up; insurers knows this, they plan on it and charge accordingly. So the insured already pay; but what about the uninsured? If they can't pay, or have an issue with the charges, who addresses their grievance? The government does, right, through administrative and civil courts. Who pays for that--- taxpayers, whether they are insured or not. But why should I, having already paid for insurance inclusive of these additional costs of doing business(ie commercial), pay again for those who haven't?

[johnwk]

State laws exist which make medical care open to all regardless of whether one can pay for it. Are these laws unconstitutional? You did not cite any particular state law, the appropriate State Constitution’s relevant provisions, and, I am not particularly interested in what other States have decided with regard to medical care. Under the Tenth Amendment, it’s their own freaken business. JWK

[LuvRPgrl]

Regarding eminent domain and the Kelo v ruling, its important to remember the city/state instigated the taking, and not the feds. With that said, and right on subject with something coming back to bite one in the ass, last I checked Kelo's property sits vacant. As testament to the intrinsic genius in our Constitution and the government it set in motion, the broad nature of its wording and complex system of processes makes it rather difficult to actually do anything; and when it does, whatever reasons or problems which had instigated the action, have been vacated or otherwise resolved through free-will.?

Doesnt matter what level of govt, is doing it. Its a simple rule of life, when you allow the evil one to help you, it comes back to bite you in the ass.




State laws exist which make medical care open to all regardless of whether one can pay for it. Are these laws unconstitutional? ?absolutely


If I go to another state and need medical care, but my insurance is from another state, do they need to accept it-- what laws apply? Isn't there a federal interest? Is this not a commercial interest of the Federal government? In one state they may have a cap on what an emergency room visit will cost; but in another state there may be a different cap, or none at all. What if my insurance caps the charges for a procedure? Typically, insurances and providers strike agreements, often extending beyond state lines. What if they can't come to an agreement, or one violates that agreement; obviously, there is a federal commerce interest in play with regards to healthcare. When grievances arise, costs go up; insurers knows this, they plan on it and charge accordingly. So the insured already pay; but what about the uninsured? If they can't pay, or have an issue with the charges, who addresses their grievance? The government does, right, through administrative and civil courts. Who pays for that--- taxpayers, whether they are insured or not. But why should I, having already paid for insurance inclusive of these additional costs of doing business(ie commercial), pay again for those who haven't?
why should I have to pay for car insurance and others accidents when I have never had an accident in my life.?

[gabosaurus]

Not sure what that has do with the pegwinn's literal translation argument, but not paying taxes and refusing govt services is easily accomplished by expatriation and relinquishing your citizenship.


Excellent!!
Anyone who doesn't like our Constitution as it stands now is invited to find a country whose constitution they like better. :slap:

[ConHog]

Excellent!!
Anyone who doesn't like our Constitution as it stands now is invited to find a country whose constitution they like better. :slap:

To be fair, I've heard MANY Obama supporters say the exact same thing. It's disgusting all the way around.

[pegwinn]

State laws exist which make medical care open to all regardless of whether one can pay for it. Are these laws unconstitutional?

No. They are fully constitutional because the federal constitution is absolutely silent on health care as a topic and thus law in that area is reserved to the states and to the people. Art I sec 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8) in part, Art I sec 9 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9), Art I sec 10 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec10), and the 10th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10) apply at a minimum.


If I go to another state and need medical care, but my insurance is from another state, do they need to accept it-- what laws apply?

No they do not. Insurance is a private business arrangement. My insurance isn't accepted by a chiropractor simply because he doesn't want to deal with the paperwork. I have heard some argue that Art IV sec I (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec1)would apply. I disagree with that argument based on verbatim reading of the literal words.


Isn't there a federal interest?
NO Is this not a commercial interest of the Federal government?
NO In one state they may have a cap on what an emergency room visit will cost; but in another state there may be a different cap, or none at all.
So what? Vegas rule applies. What goes here, stays here. What if my insurance caps the charges for a procedure?
That's cool, most do. When you sign the policy you agree to it. Typically, insurances and providers strike agreements, often extending beyond state lines.

Pardon the above slice and dice, but it was a way to quickly answer your questions and move to the one line of substance which I bolded in black.

Notice at the beginning I stated that Article I, Section 8 in part applied? That is because there is no clause with the reference that specifically covers your question on healthcare law. That is because there is a clause with the reference that covers your statement in regards to regulating commerce "... and among the several States,". I hope you see and understand this fundamental difference.

I don't like the commerce clause at all. I believe that it is too broad and that even a literal reading grants too many powers to the politicians in DC. But, it is what it is. And, once your business venture crosses a state line from state of confusion to state of enlightenment, Congress is allowed (not required) to get involved.

[ConHog]

No. They are fully constitutional because the federal constitution is absolutely silent on health care as a topic and thus law in that area is reserved to the states and to the people. Art I sec 8 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8) in part, Art I sec 9 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9), Art I sec 10 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec10), and the 10th Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10) apply at a minimum.



No they do not. Insurance is a private business arrangement. My insurance isn't accepted by a chiropractor simply because he doesn't want to deal with the paperwork. I have heard some argue that Art IV sec I (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec1)would apply. I disagree with that argument based on verbatim reading of the literal words.



Pardon the above slice and dice, but it was a way to quickly answer your questions and move to the one line of substance which I bolded in black.

Notice at the beginning I stated that Article I, Section 8 in part applied? That is because there is no clause with the reference that specifically covers your question on healthcare law. That is because there is a clause with the reference that covers your statement in regards to regulating commerce "... and among the several States,". I hope you see and understand this fundamental difference.

I don't like the commerce clause at all. I believe that it is too broad and that even a literal reading grants too many powers to the politicians in DC. But, it is what it is. And, once your business venture crosses a state line from state of confusion to state of enlightenment, Congress is allowed (not required) to get involved.



In my opinion, your mistake is that you believe a document that was designed to be interpreted is literal. It is not. If the COTUS were so absolutely black and white, there would have been no need for the Judicial branch's role in governing.

Even something as seemingly simple as the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. And no matter what one's stance on owning firearms, they can't argue that both sides have legitimate cases and it is all in the interpretation.

It simply is NOT a literal document, except for in the SPECIFIC instances where it explicity says this is how it is. For instance, "Congress shall make no law.............." That is specific, CONGRESS shall make no law pertaining to whatever subject. That clause ONLY applies to that subject, and to Congress. But of course even that has been mutilated in some instances.

The problem isn't that we don't follow the COTUS. The problem is that people in general have gotten dumber since 1776 and the forefathers didn't foresee a bunch of goddamned idiots being in office screwing things up with WRONG interpretations.

[logroller]

You did not cite any particular state law, the appropriate State Constitution’s relevant provisions, and, I am not particularly interested in what other States have decided with regard to medical care. Under the Tenth Amendment, it’s their own freaken business. JWK


Except when one state's laws generate commerce issues with another state. What did Madison and Hamilton have to say about interstate healthcare insurance corporations? Nothing? They must be unconstitutional then. Along with laws governing the internet, electricity, automobiles, and the plethora of other things which weren't specifically mentioned in the legislative powers of COTUS. OK, fine, amend the COTUS; but even when that's done, e.g. Amendment XV, you have problem that too. But why bother citing relevant provisions, you're not interested. :rolleyes:



why should I have to pay for car insurance and others accidents when I have never had an accident in my life.?
Most, if not all, insurance companies discount those who have better records; but you can self-insure here in CA--post a bond. I think its $12k.

[pegwinn]

I don't believe that it was designed to be interpreted. The judge is supposed to apply the law as opposed to interpreting it. Earlier I mentioned the 55 mph speed limit....

The second amendment needs a rewrite. I only say that because both sides depend on how they actually parse the words can make a case. In my view the amendment directs all states to maintain a militia and see to it they do not infringe on the peoples right to be armed. Two ideas in one sentence applied to politics cannot be good.

I believe it is a literal document to be read and applied verbatim. I've hashed, and re-hashed, my reasons for believing that. You mentioned specificity in your post. The constitution is specific when read verbatim. I personally use terms like "broad" when discussing certain passages where the specific wording grants waaaaaaaaay too much power - see commerce clause. So, when I say broad it is simply that I didn't pay enough attention to vocabulary back in public school. And, it's been a week or two since I attended.


The problem isn't that we don't follow the COTUS. The problem is that people in general have gotten dumber since 1776 and the forefathers didn't foresee a bunch of goddamned idiots being in office screwing things up with WRONG interpretations.

I'd change that to: The problem is that we don't follow the COTUS. The problem is that people in general become apathetic since 1776 and the forefathers didn't foresee a bunch of goddamned idiots being in office screwing things up by not simply reading and applying it.

[ConHog]

I don't believe that it was designed to be interpreted. The judge is supposed to apply the law as opposed to interpreting it. Earlier I mentioned the 55 mph speed limit....

The second amendment needs a rewrite. I only say that because both sides depend on how they actually parse the words can make a case. In my view the amendment directs all states to maintain a militia and see to it they do not infringe on the peoples right to be armed. Two ideas in one sentence applied to politics cannot be good.

I believe it is a literal document to be read and applied verbatim. I've hashed, and re-hashed, my reasons for believing that. You mentioned specificity in your post. The constitution is specific when read verbatim. I personally use terms like "broad" when discussing certain passages where the specific wording grants waaaaaaaaay too much power - see commerce clause. So, when I say broad it is simply that I didn't pay enough attention to vocabulary back in public school. And, it's been a week or two since I attended.



I'd change that to: The problem is that we don't follow the COTUS. The problem is that people in general become apathetic since 1776 and the forefathers didn't foresee a bunch of goddamned idiots being in office screwing things up by not simply reading and applying it.

You're wrong. It's that simple.

The mere fact that the COTUS designated a group specifically TO interpret the constitutionality of various laws proves that you're wrong.

But I'm done debating it with you.

[pegwinn]

You're wrong. It's that simple.

Ah no sir. Nothing is that simple. And this wasn't a question of right/wrong. It was a question of how and why. I don't think you are wrong. I disagree with your conclusions. So far nothing you've written has changed my mind and vice-versa.


The mere fact that the COTUS designated a group specifically TO interpret the constitutionality of various laws proves that you're wrong.

But, they didn't. The whole judicial review thing came later. For what it is worth, I think they should have.


But I'm done debating it with you.
Fair nuff, c'ya round.

[gabosaurus]

To be fair, I've heard MANY Obama supporters say the exact same thing. It's disgusting all the way around.

Dubya supporters used to love this response. They felt that protesters should either support the president or leave the country.
Now, strangely enough, those who dislike the president feel they are in the right and anyone who supports the administration needs to leave the country.
Strange how that works sometimes.

[ConHog]

Dubya supporters used to love this response. They felt that protesters should either support the president or leave the country.
Now, strangely enough, those who dislike the president feel they are in the right and anyone who supports the administration needs to leave the country.
Strange how that works sometimes.

Oh bullshit. Idiots on BOTH sides scream that same exact garbage and it's stupid when it comes out of anyone's mouth. Are you seriously trying to convince ANYONE that you don't know Obama supporters have done the same thing?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk You did not cite any particular state law, the appropriate State Constitution’s relevant provisions, and, I am not particularly interested in what other States have decided with regard to medical care. Under the Tenth Amendment, it’s their own freaken business. JWK

Except when one state's laws generate commerce issues with another state. What did Madison and Hamilton have to say about interstate healthcare insurance corporations? Nothing? They must be unconstitutional then. Along with laws governing the internet, electricity, automobiles, and the plethora of other things which weren't specifically mentioned in the legislative powers of COTUS. OK, fine, amend the COTUS; but even when that's done, e.g. Amendment XV, you have problem that too. But why bother citing relevant provisions, you're not interested. :rolleyes:

There was no need to say anything about “interstate healthcare insurance corporations” because each State was intended to retain power over their own State’s internal affairs including its internal commerce, just as each State now retains power over the licensing of “automobiles” which you also mention.

When you speak in generalities as you do, and do not provide the specifics which you may have in mind, it becomes impossible to conduct a productive conversation. In any event, let us take a closer look at Congress’

Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

The first step is to document the meaning of “commerce” as used by our founding fathers during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified for it is their intended meaning of “commerce” which is required to be observed by the court when construing the Constitution.

The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution meant the transportation and exchange of goods between the States. In effect Congress was given the power in question to insure “free trade“, an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. The Supreme Court documents the meaning of commerce as it appears in our Constitution as follows:


In fact, when Federalists and Anti-Federalists discussed the Commerce Clause during the ratification period, they often used trade (in its selling/bartering sense) and commerce interchangeably. See The Federalist No. 4, p. 22 (J. Jay) (asserting that countries will cultivate our friendship when our trade is prudently regulated by Federal Government); id., No. 7, at 39-40 (A. Hamilton) (discussing competitions of commerce between States resulting from state regulations of trade); id., No. 40, at 262 (J. Madison) (asserting that it was an acknowledged object of the Convention . . . that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government); Lee, Letters of a Federal Farmer No. 5, in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States 319 (P. Ford ed. 1888); Smith, An Address to the People of the State of New-York, in id., at 107.As one would expect, the term commerce was used in contradistinction to productive activities such as manufacturing and agriculture. Alexander Hamilton, for example, repeatedly treated commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing as three separate endeavors. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 36, at 224 (referring to agriculture, commerce, manufactures); id., No. 21, at 133 (distinguishing commerce, arts, and industry); id., No. 12, at 74 (asserting that commerce and agriculture have shared interests). The same distinctions were made in the state ratification conventions. See e.g., 2 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 57 (J. Elliot ed. 1836) (hereinafter Debates) (T. Dawes at Massachusetts convention); id., at 336 (M. Smith at New York convention).Moreover, interjecting a modern sense of commerce into the Constitution generates significant textual and structural problems. For example, one cannot replace commerce with a different type of enterprise, such as manufacturing. When a manufacturer produces a car, assembly cannot take place with a foreign nation or with the Indian Tribes. Parts may come from different States or other nations and hence may have been in the flow of commerce at one time, but manufacturing takes place at a discrete site. Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles. ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez

Now, let us document the intentions for which the power to regulate “commerce” was granted. A clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Indeed, we now begin to learn the intention for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted . . . one reason being, to prohibit preferences being made by Regulations of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another, and to prevent Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intention of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:

“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

In fact the power to regulate commerce among the states was intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

Now, getting back to the founder’s intentions to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders and with respect to an out of state insurance company dealing within the borders of another State. Less than a year after the ruling in United States v. SouthEastern Underwriters Ass’n, that insurance transactions across state lines constituted interstate commerce, thereby logically establishing their immunity from discriminatory state taxation, Congress passed the McCarran Act authorizing state regulation and taxation of the insurance business. In Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, a statute of South Carolina that imposed on foreign insurance companies, as a condition of their doing business in the State, an annual tax of three percent of premiums from business done in South Carolina, while imposing no similar tax on local corporations, was sustained. This seems to violate the very intentions for which power was granted to Congress to regulate commerce among the states, which was to prevent one state from taxing another State’s commerce differently than its own commerce.

JWK

[logroller]

There was no need to say anything about “interstate healthcare insurance corporations” because each State was intended to retain power over their own State’s internal affairs including its internal commerce, just as each State now retains power over the licensing of “automobiles” which you also mention.

When you speak in generalities as you do, and do not provide the specifics which you may have in mind, it becomes impossible to conduct a productive conversation. In any event, let us take a closer look at Congress’

Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

The first step is to document the meaning of “commerce” as used by our founding fathers during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified for it is their intended meaning of “commerce” which is required to be observed by the court when construing the Constitution.

The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution meant the transportation and exchange of goods between the States. In effect Congress was given the power in question to insure “free trade“, an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. The Supreme Court documents the meaning of commerce as it appears in our Constitution as follows:



Now, let us document the intentions for which the power to regulate “commerce” was granted. A clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Indeed, we now begin to learn the intention for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted . . . one reason being, to prohibit preferences being made by Regulations of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another, and to prevent Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intention of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:

“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”

In fact the power to regulate commerce among the states was intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:

“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”

Now, getting back to the founder’s intentions to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders and with respect to an out of state insurance company dealing within the borders of another State. Less than a year after the ruling in United States v. SouthEastern Underwriters Ass’n, that insurance transactions across state lines constituted interstate commerce, thereby logically establishing their immunity from discriminatory state taxation, Congress passed the McCarran Act authorizing state regulation and taxation of the insurance business. In Prudential Ins. Co. v. Benjamin, a statute of South Carolina that imposed on foreign insurance companies, as a condition of their doing business in the State, an annual tax of three percent of premiums from business done in South Carolina, while imposing no similar tax on local corporations, was sustained. This seems to violate the very intentions for which power was granted to Congress to regulate commerce among the states, which was to prevent one state from taxing another State’s commerce differently than its own commerce.

JWK

Productive conversation? you mean soapboxing other men's works As pegwinn would say "The bar's open"

"It is, indeed, possible that a tax might be laid on a particular article by a State which might render it INEXPEDIENT that thus a further tax should be laid on the same article by the Union; but it would not imply a constitutional inability to impose a further tax. The quantity of the imposition, the expediency or inexpediency of an increase on either side, would be mutually questions of prudence; but there would be involved no direct contradiction of power. "Hamilton, Federalist 32

"There can be no doubt that in order to a judicious exercise of the power of taxation, it is necessary that the person in whose hands it should be acquainted with the general genius, habits, and modes of thinking of the people at large, and with the resources of the country. And this is all that can be reasonably meant by a knowledge of the interests and feelings of the people. In any other sense the proposition has either no meaning, or an absurd one. And in that sense let every considerate citizen judge for himself where the requisite qualification is most likely to be found."- Hamilton, Federalist 35

I could keep going; anybody can cherry pick a quote which supports there position; becoming then, a matter of source challenges--talk about unproductive. You criticize me for speaking in generalities, but when specifics have been argued and decided in our Nation's highest court, you disparage their ruling as progressive and unconstitutional. When amendments are ratified, you offer disdain; hearkening to a time when our nation was agrarian and hardly more than an experiment in constitutional government. Times change, the government evolves. The thing is, I don't even agree with much of what the government is doing, but blaspheming our current system as unconstitutional won't change a thing. The foundation of government is of little consequence to the general public of today; and though I surmise you know more than I on this subject, conceptual intents from the 18th century publius are to the public of today, distal, at best.

Governance is not unlike a vine, where the strongest canes are gathered and formed into root stock, planted out in fertile soil, carefully shaped into strong branches and with God's grace, one is rewarded with lush growth and bountiful harvests. As seasons subside, to ensure more bountiful harvests, newer growth demands pruning; and We are certainly overdue for some much needed pruning. But let it be said that the initial planting and the recurrent pruning are not the same, in neither reasoning nor method. Our reasoning is the continuance of a bountiful harvest, no longer spawning anew from the fertile soils of centuries past; our method is removing weak and diseased branches, not hacking the vines to the ground, casting aside 200 years of perseverance and growth;for then you'd be back where you'd started-- left only with your vintage whine.

[fj1200]

So, no I don't stand firm on if it's not in the COTUS the government can't do it. But there has to be solid reasons for doing so.

Then why have it at all? It merely becomes suggestion and no one is required to follow it; Anyone can come up with a solid reason for doing something.

[ConHog]

Then why have it at all? It merely becomes suggestion and no one is required to follow it; Anyone can come up with a solid reason for doing something.

Which is where the Courts come in and declare yes/no you can/can't do that. Works much better than letting ordinary citizens run away screaming that this/that is unconstitutional. Don't you think.

Take the Civil Rights ACt for instance. IMO its unconstitutional, in your opinion it is not. The COTUS doesn't specifically address the issue, so we rely on the COTUS to interpret whether said law is legal, and agree as civilized men that we will live with the results of their rulings. Right?

[fj1200]

You're talking about people who take things too far, and I agree with you about them. But that doesn't change the fact that there are some legitimately good things that have been done without the express authority of the Constitution.

Such as?


Of course. The existence of the EPA, for example, fills a need that only the Fed Govt can supply, regulating pollution that crosses state borders. No single state can effectively control that. And a state receiving pollution, is ulikely to get the cooperation of the state generating it. The Federal government has a legitimate role here, one never imagined by the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution, and which is not covered by that document. The people who wrote it, put in methods to amend the Constitution, precisely because they knew that situations could arise that they could not forsee, and which possibly could not be handled by state governments..

True, but there could be multiple ways in which its authority is either granted by COTUS (Commerce Clause) or disputes could be resolved by COTUS (SCOTUS resolving issues between states).

[ConHog]

Such as?



True, but there could be multiple ways in which its authority is either granted by COTUS (Commerce Clause) or disputes could be resolved by COTUS (SCOTUS resolving issues between states).

Abuses aside, welfare is a good thing. Now again, I reiterate, abuses aside. Whether you agree that we should be giving welfare to people who are in need is a different argument than stating that it HAS done some good.

And we could at least agree that at best someone had to interpret the COTUS to mean that sort of welfare.

[johnwk]

Productive conversation? you mean soapboxing other men's works As pegwinn would say "The bar's open""soapboxing other men's works" Stop making crap up! I took the time to answer your post and this is what I get in return? My conversation with you is ended until you apologize for you adolescent conduct.

JWK

[ConHog]

What on earth are you talking about? JWK

Same thing as I was saying yesterday. Instead of quoting 9,000 constitutional quotes with little to no comment from yourself, just write your own opinion dude. Sure a few quotes to back up what you're beliefs are, but good grief.

[johnwk]

Same thing as I was saying yesterday. Instead of quoting 9,000 constitutional quotes with little to no comment from yourself, just write your own opinion dude. Sure a few quotes to back up what you're beliefs are, but good grief.

My opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant are the documented intentions of our Constitution as expressed by our founding fathers, and that is why I quote them when commenting on the meaning of our Constitution‘s provisions.

JWK

[ConHog]

My opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant are the documented intentions of our Constitution as expressed by our founding fathers, and that is why I quote them when commenting on the meaning of our Constitution‘s provisions.

JWK

Your opinions may be irrelevant when it comes to actually determining the path we follow as a country. BUT, this is an OPINION board, there isn't a person posting in this thread who couldn't google all the quotes you are posting and so posting them means NOTHING. It is your OPINION we want to read.

Quite frankly you're coming across as some automaton who is unable to speak for himself, OR a bot sent here to troll. Just tell us what YOU think.

[johnwk]

Your opinions may be irrelevant when it comes to actually determining the path we follow as a country. BUT, this is an OPINION board, there isn't a person posting in this thread who couldn't google all the quotes you are posting and so posting them means NOTHING. It is your OPINION we want to read. Quite frankly you're coming across as some automaton who is unable to speak for himself, OR a bot sent here to troll. Just tell us what YOU think.Well, I thought the title of the thread was “The Right Way To Read The Constitution.” The fact is, there is a right way, and the right way follows the rules of constitutional law. And the rules of constitutional law are factually based. Rather than offer worthless opinions in respect to the subject of the thread, I prefer to offer factually based responses, and provide the documented evidence. Why do you have a problem with my responding to the thread with factually based information and documentation?

JWK

[ConHog]

Well, I thought the title of the thread was “The Right Way To Read The Constitution.” The fact is, there is a right way, and the right way follows the rules of constitutional law. And the rules of constitutional law are factually based. Rather than offer worthless opinions in respect to the subject of the thread, I prefer to offer factually based responses, and provide the documented evidence. Why do you have a problem with my responding to the thread with factually based information and documentation?

JWK


I don't have a problem, b/c I don't read it. I'm just offering an opinion on what others have stated.

[johnwk]

I don't have a problem, b/c I don't read it. I'm just offering an opinion on what others have stated.You don’t have a problem but yet you suggest I’m a troll?

JWK

[ConHog]

You don’t have a problem but yet you suggest I’m a troll?

JWK


I suggested no such thing. I merely said that could be how your are seen.

[fj1200]

Which is where the Courts come in and declare yes/no you can/can't do that. Works much better than letting ordinary citizens run away screaming that this/that is unconstitutional. Don't you think.

Duh.


Take the Civil Rights ACt for instance. IMO its unconstitutional, in your opinion it is not. The COTUS doesn't specifically address the issue, so we rely on the COTUS to interpret whether said law is legal, and agree as civilized men that we will live with the results of their rulings. Right?

You're not entitled to that opinion; you don't stand firm on the COTUS. FWIW, I don't recall giving my opinion on the CRA.


Abuses aside, welfare is a good thing. Now again, I reiterate, abuses aside. Whether you agree that we should be giving welfare to people who are in need is a different argument than stating that it HAS done some good.

And we could at least agree that at best someone had to interpret the COTUS to mean that sort of welfare.

Debatable, but you miss the point that the states would be the best level to address many of those issues, including welfare, and are not precluded from addressing poverty.

[revelarts]

taking this out of the academic a bit.

Does the congress have the constitutional right to give the military the power to detainee people indefinitely in the U.S. suspected of crimes/terrorism/support terrorism?


December 31 Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. it will allow the indefinite detention and enhanced interogation of American citizens at home and abroad without a trial. The NDAA gives more power to the military and government and President Obama at one point said would veto the bill but he has changed his mind. Obama signed the NDAA bill on the 200 th birthday of the bill of rights.


JWK you say we need some economic changes, and some have mentioned voting for more constitutional minded candidates.

What can we Do,

Luv says it's to late.
is it to late? Is it time to do something crazy, all other political questions are moot if the miltary and throw you in jail becuase THEY SAY your a terrorist. you think Martin Luther King might have been considered a "terrorist" for example. Do we have to wait for a law to be abused before we repeal it?


Anyway is it Constitutional?

[revelarts]

SC Senator Lindsey Graham's take on it
“The homeland is part of the battlefield and people can be held without trial whether an American citizen or not.”http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/11/unconstitutional-bill-declares-us-a-battlefield-for-the-military/

what say ye?

[logroller]

My opinions are irrelevant. What is relevant are the documented intentions of our Constitution as expressed by our founding fathers, and that is why I quote them when commenting on the meaning of our Constitution‘s provisions.

JWK

Ironically, that is your opinion. I apologize if you felt my jab was below the belt, but did you read the quotes of Hamilton I put forth; where he said let each citizen judge? OUR opinions ARE relevant.

[fj1200]

Does the congress have the constitutional right to give the military the power to detainee people indefinitely in the U.S. suspected of crimes/terrorism/support terrorism?
...
Anyway is it Constitutional?


what say ye?

God I hope not and I can't see how it would be constitutional.

[ConHog]

God I hope not and I can't see how it would be constitutional.

Wouldn't be, if they were citizens. Otherwise, fuck em.

[fj1200]

^The quotes in question concern US citizens.

[ConHog]

^The quotes in question concern US citizens.

It didn't say US citizens, only said detained IN the US. But now that you have clarified. I agree with you.

[fj1200]

It didn't say US citizens, only said detained IN the US. But now that you have clarified. I agree with you.

:thumb: Right, the quotes within the posts did. I had to double check.

[ConHog]

:thumb: Right, the quotes within the posts did. I had to double check.

Must have been a post I missed. My apologies.

[pegwinn]

Which is where the Courts come in and declare yes/no you can/can't do that. Works much better than letting ordinary citizens run away screaming that this/that is unconstitutional. Don't you think.

Take the Civil Rights ACt for instance. IMO its unconstitutional, in your opinion it is not. The COTUS doesn't specifically address the issue, so we rely on the COTUS to interpret whether said law is legal, and agree as civilized men that we will live with the results of their rulings. Right?

After all the discussion of cut/paste quotes I can't help it. I was trolling townhall.com (yeah I know, I need to seek therapy) and came across this during an oped extolling Gingrich's virtues


"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions," wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1820, is "a very dangerous doctrine indeed (http://books.google.com/books?id=vvVVhCadyK4C&pg=PA178&dq=), and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." Abraham Lincoln -- revolted by the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott that blacks "had no rights a white man was bound to respect" -- rejected the claim that the justices' word was final. "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made," he warned in his first inaugural address (http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html), "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers." ---- Source (http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/2012/01/02/the_supreme_courts_judgment_isnt_absolute/page/2)


Well, I thought the title of the thread was “The Right Way To Read The Constitution.” The fact is, there is a right way, and the right way follows the rules of constitutional law. And the rules of constitutional law are factually based. Rather than offer worthless opinions in respect to the subject of the thread, I prefer to offer factually based responses, and provide the documented evidence. Why do you have a problem with my responding to the thread with factually based information and documentation?

JWK

JWK. You've mentioned "the rules of constitutional law" in several posts. I am curious about these rules. Are they like spelling and grammar rules (academically accepted) or are they canon of some sort (meaning they have real authority whether it be moral or legal)? I ask because the only document outside of the Constitution itself I am willing to consider is a dictionary as close to 1798 as I can find. I use it because it lists the accepted definition of a particular word at the time. If we were dissecting a later amendment, obviously a later dictionary would be used.

Theoretically I could get eaten by my own verbatim monster if someone used a different dictionary. Can-o-worms anyone?

I promise that this isn't a trap, prelude to flaming, and I won't post it on some place like stupidshit.com or anything like that. I'm a layman and I like learning new stuff.

[revelarts]

^The quotes in question concern US citizens.

Obama says he doesn't need the need law anyway he can ALREADY do that under the Authorization of force that Bush GOt so there ya go, we don't go back to the Constitution we go back to "presidents " interetation of the best law he can find to justify his actions,

new boss same as the old boss,


...The president went onto say that the provisions in question – specifically Sect. 1021, which he said merely “affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.” He describes the provision as “unnecessary.”

President Obama stated: “Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”
In other words, the president is using Washingtonspeak to say he already had the authority to do what the NDAA law merely “codifies.” So the danger that many Americans, lawmakers and advocacy groups are concerned about is why this president claimed the authority to kill an American citizen in Yemen earlier this year (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html?pagewanted=all) who had not actually carried out any terrorist attacks against the U.S., but was only suspected of wrongdoing.
Is that how it works in America today? No more checks and balances? Or, are there checks and balances so long as the president interprets and implements in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends?...



http://www.naturalnews.com/034560_Obama_NDAA_civil_liberties.html


the constitution is a figure head of U.S. law, not real world law anymore.

[fj1200]

Obama says he doesn't need the need law anyway he can ALREADY do that under the Authorization of force that Bush GOt so there ya go, we don't go back to the Constitution we go back to "presidents " interetation of the best law he can find to justify his actions,

new boss same as the old boss,

Probably nothing new about that but there is clearly a lack of action, or wrong action, by Congress here as well. I can understand a POTUS taking the position that Bush/BO have as their responsibility national security; they should push to get/use the tools that they need/have while Congress needs to provide the legal authority and SCOTUS needs to review.

[pegwinn]

It is a shame that the first line of defense against unconstitutional actions is often the guy, to date, committing them.

[Little-Acorn]

It is a shame that the first line of defense against unconstitutional actions is often the guy, to date, committing them.

The most major surprise out of the GWB admin was when he signed the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" Act... while announcing he thought it was unconstitutional. He said the Supreme Court had to be the arbiter of whether that was so. We all know how that came out.

He flatly betrayed the trust the people put into him, with that act. (and also did it with the Medicare Drug Supplement act, or whatever it was called).

[pegwinn]

The most major surprise out of the GWB admin was when he signed the McCain Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" Act... while announcing he thought it was unconstitutional. .....

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Little-Acorn again.