PDA

View Full Version : Thinking about the Constitution



llotter
11-27-2010, 04:07 PM
The question that I've been wondering about is when those that swear to uphold the Constitution are swearing to uphold that rather small document that easily fits in your inside jacket pocket or are they swearing to uphold a body of 'law' that has been generated over the years through precedent, a body of law developed ostensibly to meet changing times.

When I look at the Constitution, I see no mention of healthcare or retirement systems as being a federal responsibility. No mention either of education or energy or agriculture or environmental responsibilities and my understanding from a young age was that if there is not authority within the Constitution for the federal government to act, then it is against the 'law of the land' for them to act. So, I have been a bit perplexed as to exactly where that authority comes from.

Of course, there are those 'General Welfare' and the 'Necessary and Proper' and the 'Commerce' clauses that I've read about but I am still left to wonder just who decides that those expansive powers are really within the Enumerated Powers? The answer appears to be that it is the Supreme Court, a branch of the federal government, that decides. But does it seem plausible that those that ratified this Founding Document would have understood and agreed that in this 'contract' that they were ratifying between the federal government and the states it is left to the federal government itself to decide the limits of its own authority? Was it that (in pre-Seventeenth Amendment times) because the states appointed the Senators and the senate approved all Supreme Court Justices that this gave them confidence that their interests would be sufficiently represented in the decision process?

Now, if swearing to uphold the Constitution means that you are sworn to uphold that body of law that has developed since the founding, it means that we are living under a very esoteric law and that undermines most fundamentally the concept of the Rule of Law. If the 'law' cannot be clearly understood by those who must live under it, the society quickly becomes a tyranny of unlimited power of politicians and bureaucrats. It does seem to me that that describes pretty well the situation we now find ourselves.

Ronald Reagan's words that '...a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!' certainly rings as true now as ever and therefore, we will need politicians of genuine courage if we are to have any chance of getting ourselves back on the right track. We have all read about admired many of the Heroes of the Revolution or the many military engagements in our glorious history and I'm sure many of us have asked ourselves if we would have such courage when it was required by the times.

That time is now. As we totter on the edge of both economic and moral ruin it has never been clearer that we need men of true valor to withstand the attacks from all those special interests and bureaucracies who are dependent on the current system. Doing the right thing will not be the easy path, it rarely is, but we are living in desperate times and the survival of our great country depends on the leadership of courageous men. It should be in the forefront of everyone's mind that that opposite of courage is cowardice and a free country will not long survive the leadership of cowards.

As the new Republican Congress gets started and comes face to face with the huge problems caused by huge government, thinking about those Enumerated Powers just might help them figure out both how to cut the budget and how to restore our Constitutional Republic

eg8r
11-27-2010, 04:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question that I've been wondering about is when those that swear to uphold the Constitution are swearing to uphold that rather small document that easily fits in your inside jacket pocket or are they swearing to uphold a body of 'law' that has been generated over the years through precedent, a body of law developed ostensibly to meet changing times.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Larry in VA...James Kopp, A real Hero and martyr. </div></div>

What is your point?

eg8r

pooltchr
11-27-2010, 06:55 PM
I think his point is very clear. Over the years, our Washington leadership has given itself more and more authority that is clearly outside the guidelines set forth in the constitution. And I think he is saying that unless we do something to reverse that trend, our country is doomed to continue down a path that takes us further and further from the basis set forth by our founding fathers.

Does that about cover it?

Steve

cushioncrawler
11-28-2010, 12:41 AM
llotter -- I am worryd about what u sayd.
What u sayd duznt inklood even one mention of allmighty God, nor of the The Holey Bible.
How iz this so????
No mention of Satan, Heaven, Hell, the Devil, Angels, prayer, blessings, miracles, punishment -- nothing.
mac.

Qtec
11-28-2010, 04:21 AM
The biggest assault on the USCON was done by GW Bush. I didn't hear you guys complain about it.



When Cheney said he doesn't answer to anyone except the Pres, you guys swallowed it.

eg,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Vice President Not in Executive Branch?

Posted on: June 23, 2007 9:31 AM, by Ed Brayton

I'm sure you've heard about this by now. According to a letter sent by Rep. Henry Waxman to the Vice President, Cheney's office has for the last 4 years refused to allow routine office inspections regarding the handling of classified documents from the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), <span style='font-size: 20pt'>claiming not to be a part of the executive branch.</span> </div></div>

How about Bush's claim that he can break into your house, tap your phone and read your email, bug your house without a warrant?

That he can tap into the internet and intrude into your privacy whenever he sees fit?

now that a black guy is Pres you go all ape$hit!

Q...pardon the pun.

LWW
11-28-2010, 05:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The question that I've been wondering about is when those that swear to uphold the Constitution are swearing to uphold that rather small document that easily fits in your inside jacket pocket or are they swearing to uphold a body of 'law' that has been generated over the years through precedent, a body of law developed ostensibly to meet changing times.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Larry in VA...James Kopp, A real Hero and martyr. </div></div>

What is your point?

eg8r </div></div>

Stand next to Q and look straight up.

LWW

LWW
11-28-2010, 05:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think his point is very clear. Over the years, our Washington leadership has given itself more and more authority that is clearly outside the guidelines set forth in the constitution. And I think he is saying that unless we do something to reverse that trend, our country is doomed to continue down a path that takes us further and further from the basis set forth by our founding fathers.

Does that about cover it?

Steve </div></div>

That was my take.

Jefferson warned that the COTUS had a flaw in that it allowed for a terror of the judiciary.

LWW

LWW
11-28-2010, 05:33 AM
Stand next to Eg and look straight up.

LWW

eg8r
11-29-2010, 09:03 AM
Why would he wonder about others who swear to uphold the Constitution if he praises a man that never cared about the Constitution?

No need to play your stupid games, come out and say what you want to say. If we keep this pace up you might get to the point where you say something like "words mean something" and then you look foolish again like last time.

eg8r

eg8r
11-29-2010, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think his point is very clear. Over the years, our Washington leadership has given itself more and more authority that is clearly outside the guidelines set forth in the constitution.</div></div>I am wondering why he cares. He obviously is praising a man that did not care about the Constitution yet he wants to "think" about other's committments?

eg8r