PDA

View Full Version : Enumerated Powers



llotter
07-30-2011, 02:15 PM
Here is a very good exposition of just what the Federal Government should be doing:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/28847

LWW
07-30-2011, 02:32 PM
HEAR HEAR!

Soflasnapper
07-30-2011, 03:54 PM
The Federalist Papers do indeed provide a coherent exposition of what SOME SAID the federal government should be doing. Published anonymously, or rather, credited to a pseudonym-named 'person,' "Publius."

Should we take them as definitive? That's a controversial claim.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Opposition to the Bill of Rights

The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.

However, Hamilton's opposition to a Bill of Rights was far from universal. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, articulated this view point in the so-called Anti-Federalist No. 84, asserting that a government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the Bill, such as Thomas Jefferson, argued that a list of rights would not and should not be interpreted as exhaustive; i.e., that these rights were examples of important rights that people had, but that people had other rights as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion. The matter was further clarified by the Ninth Amendment.</div></div>

What did Hamilton, the author of more than half of the essays found in the Federalist Papers, actually think the government should be allowed to do, as represented by his ACTIONS in the Washington administration?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton was the primary author of the economic policies of the George Washington Administration, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>especially the funding of the state debts by the Federal government, the establishment of a national bank</span>, a system of tariffs, and friendly trade relations with Britain. He became the leader of the Federalist Party, created largely in support of his views, and was opposed by the Democratic-Republican Party, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.</div></div>

What enumerated power would allow the federal government to FUND THE STATE DEBTS???

Why would the views of Hamilton be considered superior to the opposing view of Jefferson and Madison (both founding fathers themselves, and credited respectively as the writer of the Declaration of Independence and the father of the Constitution, and later, presidents in their own right)?

Why, for that matter, should the work primarily of Hamilton be considered definitive at all?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The amount of deference that should be given to the Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that "the opinions expressed by the authors of that work have been justly supposed to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them which exceeds their merit; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a right to judge of their correctness must be retained."[29] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Madison himself believed not only that The Federalist Papers were not a direct expression of the ideas of the Founders, but that those ideas themselves, and the "debates and incidental decisions of the Convention," should not be viewed as having any "authoritative character." In short, "the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution, but in the sense attached to it by the people in their respective State Conventions where it recd. all the Authority which it possesses."</span>[30][31]</div></div>

Quotes are from Wiki, some from the entry for Federalist Papers, some from the entry for Alexander Hamilton.

llotter
07-30-2011, 06:46 PM
If you point is that our history can be deconstructed to the point of losing all meaning, I won't argue that position very hard. The deconstructionists have largely succeeded in substituting whatever ad-hoc meaning is convenient for their goal.

Let's see, there was and is debate over this and that (of the millions of words written and spoken, insert a few to illustrate the controversy) so if I want to interpret the Constitution to say that a few people in Washington can do anything they please, without limit, then I am free to say that it does exactly that. This however does fail the smell test.

Obviously both the people and the states were very concerned about limiting the power of the federal government and did their best to accomplish that main goal with the Constitution. In fact they listed specifically those thing that were authorized and nothing more. It was on that basis that the Constitution was ratified. Who can seriously think that it would have been ratified if the citizens and states thought that they were ceding unlimited power? That would be in direct conflict with the concept of liberty.

llotter
07-30-2011, 07:05 PM
If you point is that our history can be deconstructed to the point of losing all meaning, I won't argue that position very hard. The deconstructionists have largely succeeded in substituting whatever ad-hoc meaning is convenient for their goal.

Let's see, there was and is debate over this and that (of the millions of words written and spoken, (insert a few quotes to illustrate the controversy) so if I want to interpret the Constitution to say that a few people in Washington can do anything they please, without limit, whose to say any different. This however does fail the smell test.

Obviously both the people and the states were very concerned about limiting the power of the federal government and did their best to accomplish that main goal with the Constitution. In fact they listed specifically those thing that were authorized and nothing more. It was on that basis that the Constitution was ratified. Who can seriously think that it would have been ratified if the citizens and states thought that they were ceding unlimited power? That would be in direct conflict with the concept of liberty.

While you feign an unbiased open-mindedness, the reality is, like all lefties, fearful of admitting freedom and moral virtue are an innate 'good' because that would make you look closed minded in your world. The 'good' in your world is to be open to all views equally 'cept not all view are equal and when you grow up, maybe you'll accept that fact.

LWW
07-31-2011, 02:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Federalist Papers do indeed provide a coherent exposition of what SOME SAID the federal government should be doing. Published anonymously, or rather, credited to a pseudonym-named 'person,' "Publius."

Should we take them as definitive? That's a controversial claim.</div></div>

Actually ... it isn't at all.

The FP, it's true, were printed under the alias of "PUBLIUS" ... the identity(s) of "PUBLIUS" are well known ... and have been for centuries.

Of the 85 articles:

- 26 were penned by James Madison, father of the COTUS and 4th POTUS.

- 5 were from John Jay, 1st Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.

- 2 - Were a collaboration between Madison and Hamilton.

- 51 were penned by Alexander Hamilton, first US Secretary of the Treasury, early advocate of a national constitution, and representative at the constitutional convention.

One of the critical differences between you and I is that I trust the plain English of the COTUS and it's detailed backup in the FP by the men who actually put the COTUS together.

OTOH, you trust revisionists to tell you what they want you to believe was the original intent of the authors ... even though that interpretation often is an exact opposite of what the authors clearly stated.

LWW
07-31-2011, 03:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What enumerated power would allow the federal government to FUND THE STATE DEBTS???</div></div>

I'll take "WHAT IS SECTION 8, POWERS OF CONGRESS, OF THE COTUS FOR A THOUSAND ALEX" ... have you ever even read the COTUS and FP?

I believe that was covered in 4th or 5th grade civics class.

LWW
07-31-2011, 03:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would the views of Hamilton be considered superior to the opposing view of Jefferson and Madison (both founding fathers themselves, and credited respectively as the writer of the Declaration of Independence and the father of the Constitution, and later, presidents in their own right)?

Why, for that matter, should the work primarily of Hamilton be considered definitive at all?</div></div>

First off, to claim that Jefferson was opposed to the COTUS is a ridiculous notion.

Second, to answer the question of superiority of opinion, again a junior HS civics class would mostly know the answer to this ... Hamilton and Madison were delegates to the constitutional convention, while Jefferson was not.

LWW
07-31-2011, 03:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why, for that matter, should the work primarily of Hamilton be considered definitive at all?</div></div>

Because during his lifetime Hamilton was the nation's premier constitutional lawyer, a de facto co-author of the COTUS itself, a delegate to the convetion which ratified the document, the premier presenter of the document at the convention, and the primary author of the FP.

Anything else I can help you with?

Qtec
07-31-2011, 03:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 2. To pay the debts of the United States;</div></div>

Hear, Hear.

Q

LWW
07-31-2011, 03:38 AM
Nobody has suggested otherwise nitboy.

Gayle in MD
07-31-2011, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you point is that our history can be deconstructed to the point of losing all meaning, I won't argue that position very hard. The deconstructionists have largely succeeded in substituting whatever ad-hoc meaning is convenient for their goal.

Let's see, there was and is debate over this and that (of the millions of words written and spoken, insert a few to illustrate the controversy) so if I want to interpret the Constitution to say that a few people in Washington can do anything they please, without limit, then I am free to say that it does exactly that. This however does fail the smell test.

Obviously both the people and the states were very concerned about limiting the power of the federal government and did their best to accomplish that main goal with the Constitution. In fact they listed specifically those thing that were authorized and nothing more. It was on that basis that the Constitution was ratified. Who can seriously think that it would have been ratified if the citizens and states thought that they were ceding unlimited power? That would be in direct conflict with the concept of liberty. </div></div>

<span style="color: #660000"> Yet you praise exxtremist, radical religious cowards, who hide in the bushes and kill law abiding citizens, and praise murderers who do not abide by the Constitional Laws of the Land.

Yet you think you have the right to enter another person's space, harrass them, and try to force you religious views, into their personal lives and decisions, while they are exercising their constitutional rights.

You are the LAST person in the world, who should be speaking about The constitution, or Liberty!!!!

G. </span>

llotter
07-31-2011, 09:15 AM
It's the same story every time, Gayle. I am supporting the 'right to life... as in the Declaration of Independence. It is you and your liberal friends that are doing all the forcing in our society. It is your crowd that are using the tax code and regulatory codes and the courts to manipulate our behavior with your stupid, counter-productive social engineering.

Yes, I admit that encouraging people to conform to a good moral code but it is not done through the police powers that the Left feels free to use. In fact, it is a fundamental precept of Christianity that acceptance must be voluntary and not coerced but more importantly, a good moral foundation is necessary for freedom to work and avoid excessive government and excessive force.

So it is the absolute minimum of interference that conservatives seek to maximize individual liberty, exactly the opposite of the modus operandi of liberalism. The list of liberal interference in our daily life is never ending...from what lightbulb to use to how much water your toilet uses to how much gas your car consumes and on and on and on. Hell, even a little kids lemonade stand is not safe from the do-gooder police. And ultimately, all those do-gooder police operate through force or the threat of force.

So don't point to others for doing what your are guilty of by a factor of a thousand. And why do liberals want to play the role of social nanny? Because it's an elitist power trip with job security. Hopefully, if conservatives (conservative does not mean Republican) ever get the reins of government, that job security will finally come to an end.

llotter
07-31-2011, 09:21 AM
I should also remind you that, as Goldwater said, 'extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in pursuit in justice is not virtue'

Gayle in MD
07-31-2011, 09:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's the same story every time, Gayle. I am supporting the 'right to life... as in the Declaration of Independence. It is you and your liberal friends that are doing all the forcing in our society. It is your crowd that are using the tax code and regulatory codes and the courts to manipulate our behavior with your stupid, counter-productive social engineering.

Yes, I admit that encouraging people to conform to a good moral code but it is not done through the police powers that the Left feels free to use. In fact, it is a fundamental precept of Christianity that acceptance must be voluntary and not coerced but more importantly, a good moral foundation is necessary for freedom to work and avoid excessive government and excessive force.

So it is the absolute minimum of interference that conservatives seek to maximize individual liberty, exactly the opposite of the modus operandi of liberalism. The list of liberal interference in our daily life is never ending...from what lightbulb to use to how much water your toilet uses to how much gas your car consumes and on and on and on. Hell, even a little kids lemonade stand is not safe from the do-gooder police. And ultimately, all those do-gooder police operate through force or the threat of force.

So don't point to others for doing what your are guilty of by a factor of a thousand. And why do liberals want to play the role of social nanny? Because it's an elitist power trip with job security. Hopefully, if conservatives (conservative does not mean Republican) ever get the reins of government, that job security will finally come to an end. </div></div>

What a load of crap!

Nothing in my philosophy includes justifying murder, breaking the law, or forcing my personal views, upon others.

You either respect our constitutional laws, or you don't, and when you praise murderers, and think you have a right to harrass people who are not breaking any laws, when they are exercising their Constitutional RIGHTS, you prove right there, that you have no clue about The Constitution Of The Unitied states Of America, and NO RESPECT FOR OUR LAWS.

"Settled Law" means that the law has been tested, over time, and proven to be Constitutional.

You and the rest of the fanatical religious nutjobs, and the Repiglican Party, display NO RESPECT for the rights of others, who are abiding by our laws.



What you seek is a renewal of the religious misogyny, sexism, racism, and anti-Americanism, which demanded a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights, in the first place.

YOU do not get to dictate what is and isn't moral, in a free society, according to your personal sicko religious views!

Our laws, and our Constitution, are the documents which provide legal limits, and which also, BTW, prove your unAmerican, total lack of respect for the core of Americanism, a peaceful, law abiding nation, free of the violence and harrassment of unbalanced, dictating zealots like you, so morally bankrupt that you justify and praise ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL DOMESTIC TERRORISM AND MURDER!!

G.

llotter
07-31-2011, 10:14 AM
Like the article supporting this thread makes, the laws have gone far beyond the COTUS. What I seek is a federal government that stays within the bounds of the Constitution and nothing more.

Let people be free to run their own lives and be responsible for their own decisions. IOW, let freedom be our cause.

The proof that the ideas of the Left are terrible are in the headlines everyday, including today. Our society if crumbling, our debt is drowning us and the future looks bleak, all thanks to the tax and spend policies of the Left. The shining city on the hill has turned to a social welfare state ruled by The moron and his minions.

Gayle in MD
07-31-2011, 10:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Like the article supporting this thread makes, the laws have gone far beyond the COTUS. What I seek is a federal government that stays within the bounds of the Constitution and nothing more.

Let people be free to run their own lives and be responsible for their own decisions. IOW, let freedom be our cause.

The proof that the ideas of the Left are terrible are in the headlines everyday, including today. Our society if crumbling, our debt is drowning us and the future looks bleak, all thanks to the tax and spend policies of the Left. The shining city on the hill has turned to a social welfare state ruled by The moron and his minions. </div></div>

It was Bush's rah rah war neocons, and the Blank Check Repigloican majority, who brought our country down on every level.
Bush ignored the warnings of the coming attack, on 9/11.
Failed to focus on getting our attackers, when he switched resourses to Iraq.
He lied us into the war in Iraq.
Franchised al Qaeda.
Emboldened our enemies.
Expanded our threats in the Middle East.
Cut taxes during wartime.
Failed to pay for his wars.
Failed to include the war expenses in our budget.
Created expensive giveaways to the Pharmaceutical Industry.
Failed to pay for his big pharma giveaways.
Repiglican Greenspan, kept interest rates dangerusly low, flaming the R.E.bubble.
Bush for an Ownership Society, expanding the Real Estate Bubble even further, while flaming the Real Estate Bubble, his policies sent the "We're not Looking" message to Wall St. thieves, as they continued their Wall St. Ponzi Scheme.
Bush Failed to get bin Laden, or smash al Qaeda.
Bush spread an ideology that the deficits didn't matter.
Bush never vetoed the Repiglican unprecedented spending.
Bush never addressed the unsustainable cost of Medicalol Caare in our country.
Bush never addressed our dependence on foreign oil, in fact, he increased it.
Bush spread unrest in the Middle East.
Bush spent, spent, spent, and never paid for his unprecedented spending.
Bush broke Treaties, abused signing statements, outed a covert CIA Agent, broke the FISA laws, and lied to Americans for eight long miserable years.
He left us with a collapsed economy.
Two unfinished wars, neither of them paid for.
Job losses in the 800,000 a month range.
Failed to get bin Laden.
Damaged our honor in the world.
Spent over 800 billion in his TARP Giveaway, with no conditions included.
Left the largest deficits of any president, After he wasted a healthy curplus, and left the country on the brink of a depression, and no money to repair his damages to the country.

Obama came in and diverted the Bush Depression.
Ended the recession.
Kept State workers in their jobs with his stimulus, And created millions of private sector jobs, with his his stiimulus, which added only 7% to our current deficit.
Saved the automobile industry.
Got bin Laden.
Launched the beginning of a very good start to addressing our unsustainable Health Care costs, and prevented health Insurance Corps. from denying us coverage.
Addressed Bush's damages to America's honor, and was embraced round the world giving hope to all nations to the point that he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
And, according to recent reports and estimates, al Qaeda is virtually destroyed.

H was aided in all of this by one of the most accomplished and successful majority in the Senate and the house of Representatives in history, led by Nancy Pelosi, one of the most accomplished Speakers Of The House In history, and accomplished all of this in spite of non stop Repiglican lies, fear mongering, obstructionism, and slander.


We don't have a social welfare state.
We have a country which seeks to provide humane aid for our hungry children, the poor, the ill and the homeless, as do all of the Industrial Countries of the world.

We have a country which seeks to live up to the words on our Statue Of Liberty, Liberty being a principle about which you have no clue.

You prove that when you reveal that you seek to dictate to others according to your personal, religious beliefs.

You prove you do not respect our Constitution, when you seek opportunities to force your personal views upon other law abiding citizens.

You prove you have no respect for Liberty or the constitution, when you reiterate, over and over, your unconscionable support and praise for murdering zealots, cowards who ignore our Constitutional LAWS, just as you prove your ignorance of our Constitution, when you justify your own refusal to respect settled Constitutional laws, as you justify harrassing others, invading their privacy, and trying to force your beliefs upon others, when they are practicing their Constitutional rights, to privacy, and freedom, withint the bounds of the laws, invading their space to harrass them over decisions which are absolutely NONE of your business.

G.

llotter
07-31-2011, 12:13 PM
You should understand that defending our country is the most important function of the federal government and while you are free to critique particular tactics and methods, they were doing want they are authorized to do under the Constitution.

OTOH, most of what our government is doing is illegal, against the Constitution and destructive of our society. The wars total cost was $1.2 trillion the beginning but the checks written to individual was $2.3 trillion in 2010 along, more that the total take in taxes and all of those redistributions were against the Constitution. A reasonable question might be, how can you point to the much small number as being responsible for all of our problems and ignore the much larger number?

Soflasnapper
07-31-2011, 03:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you point is that our history can be deconstructed to the point of losing all meaning, I won't argue that position very hard. The deconstructionists have largely succeeded in substituting whatever ad-hoc meaning is convenient for their goal.

Let's see, there was and is debate over this and that (of the millions of words written and spoken, (insert a few quotes to illustrate the controversy) so if I want to interpret the Constitution to say that a few people in Washington can do anything they please, without limit, whose to say any different. This however does fail the smell test.

Obviously both the people and the states were very concerned about limiting the power of the federal government and did their best to accomplish that main goal with the Constitution. In fact they listed specifically those thing that were authorized and nothing more. It was on that basis that the Constitution was ratified. Who can seriously think that it would have been ratified if the citizens and states thought that they were ceding unlimited power? That would be in direct conflict with the concept of liberty.

While you feign an unbiased open-mindedness, the reality is, like all lefties, fearful of admitting freedom and moral virtue are an innate 'good' because that would make you look closed minded in your world. The 'good' in your world is to be open to all views equally 'cept not all view are equal and when you grow up, maybe you'll accept that fact. </div></div>

These are fair points, and the world and the COTUS, and what are considered its legitimate interpretations, have changed a lot since then.

Originally, the states were little nations unto themselves in loose affiliation. What they wrought in the Constitution was not entirely known in all its implications at first, nor could it really be. In fact, that we had a Constitution replacing the Articles of Federation was a surprise, and somewhat of a trick, since that wasn't the stated purpose of that convention.

Unlike LWW's true but misleading gloss would imply, the names of the authors of the Federalist Papers were not known at the time. These were not simply the dry recitation of scholarly inquiry, but the pamphleteering style efforts of advocates attempting to convince the states to ratify the Constitution. They were ADVOCATES, and POLITICIANS, neither infallible by dogma (as the Pope is said to be), nor decisive, because they are final (as the SCOTUS is). I've already provided quotes from then-Chief Justice Marshall and ('father of the Constitution') Madison, reflecting that the FPs are not dispositive nor authoritative.

What was used to sell the opportunity to create the Constitution in the first place was a misleading claim that all that was going on was a revision to the Articles of Confederation. Could it be also that the claims of the authors of the Federalist Papers were equally mendacious, as to the final end result of their new structure for the government of the nation? Barring mendacity, could the structure itself contain features that would lead to changes in policies they could not foresee (even though legitimate devolvements of the original structure)? Plainly, yes, at least for the last part.

Fairly immediately on, with many of the framers and founders still in the government (Jefferson as POTUS, e.g.), the SCOTUS decision of Madison v. Marbury made clear the feature of the structure that could vastly change policies over time, establishing the SCOTUS as the last arbiter of what the COTUS meant. One might argue that this was a serious overreach by the SCOTUS, and by our country's second Chief Justice of the high court, but such an arbiter role was contemplated by many framers, the state conventions, and the Federalist Papers themselves, with Hamilton a chief proponent.*

In any event, it was imposed not a generation later, but in the same generation, and organically, out of the structures put into place, with the framers and founders right there.

Over time, SCOTUS decisions have broadened the allegedly appropriate role of the US federal government, and given their role in our system, it is all legal (like).

I think the linked article is flatly wrong that the SCOTUS changed its jurisprudential reasoning and decisions on the role of government out of the court-packing threat and plan of FDR. That is a fanciful claim, and rather an insult to those conservative jurists. What happened instead was that as those prior justices retired, FDR placed his nominees into position, thus shifting the balance of the court. Which again was wholly legitimate, as his nomination powers are grated by the COTUS, and those men were duly ratified in the Senate, per the COTUS.

Between the early history and the FDR history, there was a little something called the Civil War. This ended a great part of the sovereignty of states (in that they were not free to secede, as I believe was ANOTHER early agreed power of the states, now gone by the wayside). Beyond that, the 14th amendment created everyone as US citizens, when before they had been mainly considered citizens of their individual states, solely, unless born or residing in US federal territories and holdings.

Conservatives sometimes refer to this arrangement, post-Civil War, as the second Constitution, so great were the changes wrought by these results.

I see the effort of those insisting that only the originalist intent of the framers counts, as profoundly anti-conservative efforts, actually radical, as they attempt to vanish away the intervening great changes, and overturn the role of the high court in determining what is legit under the COTUS grant of powers, and what is unConstitutional.

Vast social arrangements which work well and are entirely supported by a satisfied populace have been built upon the understandings over the years. A conservative would think long and hard before attempting to undercut their legitimacy and throw the vulnerable sick and elderly onto the streets to seek charity for their support. A radical would snap his fingers and say, make it so.

Under the pretense of conservatism, which it is not, large private business interests and private wealth have engaged in a hundred year war against the power of the people through the state to regulate the harm they would do, because they have done it in the past (which prompted all this regulation in the first place, not recently, but at the end of the 19th century, well before the social welfare safety net (except for Civil War pensions)).

Either our system has a arbiter of Constitutionality (the SCOTUS), or it does not, and everyone is free to make any argument, and nothing is decided and everything is up for grabs at all times. Talk about freezing commerce by uncertainty, this would be it in spades.

A true conservative would honor the role of the SCOTUS in this regard, as both Constitutionally authorized and ultimately, necessary. If that principle is agreed to, then we do not make arguments about the founders and framers, but allow the SCOTUS consideration of the same to be the determining factor. It isn't as if they don't give all of that considerable weight, as the Federalist Papers are actually cited in some several hundred SCOTUS decisions. But what we do is tell the armchair historians and amateur barroom philosophers that their bare assertions are without force, compared to the solid rock of the edifice of law that has been constructed over more than 200 years of legitimacy.

*From Wiki on Marbury v. Madison:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A number of legal scholars argue that the power of judicial review in the United States predated Marbury, and that Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. These scholars point to statements about judicial review made in the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions, statements about judicial review in publications debating ratification, and court cases before Marbury that involved judicial review.[14]

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[15]

Likewise, at the state ratifying conventions, over two dozen delegates in at least seven states indicated that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have the power to declare statutes unconstitutional.[16] Professors Saikrishna Prakash and John Yoo point out, with respect to the ratification of the Constitution, that "no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."[17]

The concept of judicial review was discussed in the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton asserted in Federalist No. 78 that under the Constitution, the federal courts would have not just the power, but the duty, to examine the constitutionality of statutes:
“ [T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[18]</div></div>

Soflasnapper
07-31-2011, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is a very good exposition of just what the Federal Government should be doing:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/28847 </div></div>

If we want to consider original intent, let's consider the phrase empowering the Congress to raise the armies.

What could that possibly mean?

The founders and framers were absolutely set against a permanent standing army. They considered it one of the worst threats to the nation's freedom imaginable. An army was restricted to a 2-year funding, so that it couldn't be permanent, and would require revisiting the funding in a short period of time.

Every war we had saw the same pattern: no sizable army, pre-war, which was then RAISED BY CONGRESSIONAL ACT, and then, post-war, the army was demobilized.

As Eisenhower explained in his farewell address to the nation, post-WW II and Korea and into the Cold War saw an entirely new and unprecedented development-- the perceived need for an immense, permanent and large military establishment. We had never had anything like this in our past, and our forefathers were strongly against any such thing.

Ike warned against the immense financial and political power of a permanent war machine, calling it famously the military-industrial complex. Really because of the way it's worked over the years, this is more accurately termed the military-Congressional-Communications industry-industrial complex.

As Ike said, there was not a single state house (seat of state government), and he could have added, hardly a Congressional district, into which the tentacles of this vast power has not insinuated its control.

Its greatest panic was because of our greatest foreign policy success ever-- the end of the Soviet empire. without general war. You'd think that perhaps that could have ended the large military establishment. It did allow its funding to decrease (very slightly, for a brief few years), only to see those monies in the budget more than double, from a 'threat' several orders of magnitude smaller than our previous world-bestriding foe.

We widely consider SS 'bankrupt' because it will require maybe $100 billion a year (to repay the bonds it was paid in, for cash surpluses loaned to the general fund), while still covering 90%+ of its bills.

How 'bankrupt' is the military, then, since ALL of its $700 billion a year (and $150 billion more, for the wars), must be paid each year.

This is where I respect the Libertarian position, who will mention this salient fact, and as part of their call for a limited government per the COTUS enumerated powers and the sentiments of the founders, strongly advocate the return to a vastly smaller military establishment.

llotter
07-31-2011, 07:16 PM
You just can't resist deconstructing our history to fit you supposed Constitution-w/o-limits theology. We have a standing army to meet threats which would likely be the language the Founders would have used if they wanted to mention in the Constitution that the country shouldn't have a standing army (unless there were apparent threat.)

If there was a prohibition, the proper course of action would be an amendment if a change was required to meet changing times. Obviously, the Founders did not nix the possibility however and there has been military threats since the start of the cold war so a standing army is appropriate.

SS is 'bankrupt' because it is blatantly unconstitutional, unlike the military.

And to respond to another thread where you said something to the effect SS and Medicare were implemented because the free markets failed. You should know that the 'market' is only the name for what free citizens decide for themselves in billions of daily decisions to satisfy their wants and needs, both as buyers and sellers. Who has the authority in our society to determine that their decisions are wrong? Some all-knowing Morons who have the conceit to believe they know how to manage everyone's affairs for them? Such conceit is fatal to a free society and we are seeing the failure in progress.

Soflasnapper
07-31-2011, 08:15 PM
Hardly. It is the sovereign who decided this, the people of the US, by and through their elected representatives, using wholly legitimate processes of government. They wanted it then, they liked it then, and they like it more now. But are stupid and acting illegally, according to your analysis.

You cannot hate our system so much, so as to find the actions of the Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court blatantly wrong.

Soflasnapper
07-31-2011, 08:18 PM
BTW, how was there not a military threat in the time of the framers? We'd just fought the British some years back, and as of 1812, fought them again.

Gayle in MD
07-31-2011, 08:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You should understand that defending our country is the most important function of the federal government and while you are free to critique particular tactics and methods, they were doing want they are authorized to do under the Constitution.

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>They? Of whom do you speak?</span> </span>

OTOH, most of what our government is doing is illegal, against the Constitution and destructive of our society.


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Our Government is doing many things, but the only Unconstitutional and destructive things going on are being promoted and prosecuted by the right, and particularly the corporate fascist radical right.

Not by Liberals.</span> </span>

The wars total cost was $1.2 trillion the beginning but the checks written to individual was $2.3 trillion in 2010 along, more that the total take in taxes and all of those redistributions were against the Constitution.


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Above statement totally incorrect. </span> </span>

A reasonable question might be, how can you point to the much small number as being responsible for all of our problems and ignore the much larger number? </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>I didn't. </span> </span>

llotter
07-31-2011, 08:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, how was there not a military threat in the time of the framers? We'd just fought the British some years back, and as of 1812, fought them again. </div></div>

perception

Gayle in MD
08-02-2011, 06:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, how was there not a military threat in the time of the framers? We'd just fought the British some years back, and as of 1812, fought them again. </div></div>

perception </div></div>

It isn't perception that Repiglicans across this country, in the House and Senate, in Governorships, are all pushing for totally Unconstitutional legislation, and being paid to do it by corporate powers, that have also drained the jobs from America, and are sitting on trillions, whilole the country struggles to survive the mess they made throughout Bush et al.

Federal Courts, AND Appleals courts, have ruled against the major Repiglican policies of late, from the Reiglican's push to close Planned Parenthood Centers, and interfere with the individual rights of women, including their access to birth control and abortion, without any irrational pre-requisites.

A Balanced Budget Amendment, is completely Unconstitutional.

The Presidents' Health Insurance Mandate, has been supported and found Constitutional by a majority of Federal Court Findings, already.

If you righties had any real understanding of the US Constitution, (Repiglicans ALREADY PROVED they do not, when they couldn't even READ the damn thing correctly during their bravado theatrics on their first day of majority) we could possibly avoid all the wasted time and expense that you seditionists are causing and costing the country, and get on with recovering from all the messes you made.

Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals, still trying to overturn SETTLED Constitutional laws, liker our American public insurance programs, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, programs that have been accepted laws and policies since the 1930's!

Whatever you righties don't like, you call it Socialism. SOOOOOOOOO ignorant of you.

Name me one modern Industrial country, that isn't a dictatorship, that isn't a blend of some forms of socialism????

Democratics will have to continue to watch Federal judges drag you righties kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.

Your irrational goals are NOT economically sound, in reality, but just more sore loser ideology, anachronistic, and bad for America's HUMAN rights, our health and the economy, since with no Midle Class to buy anything, jobs will never recover.
And with no regulations, more ponzi schemes will devastate all of us, and with no appreciation for, or investment in Education, Rebuiolding our infrastructure, addressing and protecting our environment and ecology, more illnesses and medical costs will cripple our nation, and limit our abililty to compete on the global market.

Job losses, created by Repiglican VOODOO Economics, are the issue, not tryng to blow up the world's economy, through the non-stop campaigning, and economic threats, by the Repiglican Party, which only adds to the instability, and psychological fears of investing.

When McConnell said is first and foremost goal was to make this president a one-term president, he also made it very clear, that the phony Campaign BS from the Right as they were yapping about Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, was really just another dog whistle lie.

They have done NOTHING about Jobs, in fact, they have done Nothinig about anything important, except create more crisis where none have ever existed in the past.

I for one am sick and tired of repiglican shenanigans and phony BS. The country is fed up with Tea Party Zealots, and Repiglican obstructionism.

This whole debt crisis was created out of thin air, by Tea Party idiots and the top three Repiglicans on The Hill!

Give me a break! Haven't wee seen enough of these kinds of irrational REpigloican policies. This is no time to cripple goverrnment, and cut spending. All thhey will accomplish is growing the unemployment numbers. It is time to spend, not cut. Invest, and compromise, not obstruct!


"I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'l blow your house down!"


That was a nursery book, not rational, adult Government policy!

Repigs are famous for these irrational threats, thrown out there only for the purpose of being radical extremist obstructionists,.... dictators, proving they are immature and unable to negotiate!

By the way, the earth is not flat, and it is far older than 6,000 years!

G.

LWW
08-02-2011, 06:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you point is that our history can be deconstructed to the point of losing all meaning, I won't argue that position very hard. The deconstructionists have largely succeeded in substituting whatever ad-hoc meaning is convenient for their goal.

Let's see, there was and is debate over this and that (of the millions of words written and spoken, (insert a few quotes to illustrate the controversy) so if I want to interpret the Constitution to say that a few people in Washington can do anything they please, without limit, whose to say any different. This however does fail the smell test.

Obviously both the people and the states were very concerned about limiting the power of the federal government and did their best to accomplish that main goal with the Constitution. In fact they listed specifically those thing that were authorized and nothing more. It was on that basis that the Constitution was ratified. Who can seriously think that it would have been ratified if the citizens and states thought that they were ceding unlimited power? That would be in direct conflict with the concept of liberty.

While you feign an unbiased open-mindedness, the reality is, like all lefties, fearful of admitting freedom and moral virtue are an innate 'good' because that would make you look closed minded in your world. The 'good' in your world is to be open to all views equally 'cept not all view are equal and when you grow up, maybe you'll accept that fact. </div></div>

These are fair points, and the world and the COTUS, and what are considered its legitimate interpretations, have changed a lot since then.</div></div>

And you lost the debate right there.

Reinterpretation changes meaning only in the mind of a bot, a moron, or a hyper-partisan tool.

Reinterpreting a cat to be a dog does not make it a dog.

What you are de facto calling for is an oligarchy, where a gang of nine, obliterating the rule of law.

Now ... the COTUS can be changed, this is true. The means to do so are documented within the COTUS. Those who worship at the altar of the omniscient state don't want to follow that route ... they prefer their godkings tell them what they feel is should mean. Today. Subject to change without notice.

The likes of the modern left are exactly what the state requires in order to rule and dominate.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."</span>
-Adolf Shicklegruber Hitler-

Soflasnapper
08-02-2011, 01:47 PM
So, Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal) should have stood for all eternity, rather than being overturned by Brown v. Kansas Board of Education?

Got it!

LWW
08-02-2011, 04:39 PM
Lame analogy ... but, you already knew that.

llotter
08-03-2011, 03:10 PM
Because the courts get most of their decisions wrong does not mean that they get everything wrong.

Soflasnapper
08-03-2011, 04:26 PM
Reinterpretation changes meaning only in the mind of a bot, a moron, or a hyper-partisan tool.

Or maybe such a change reflects the battle of differing ideas of what the Constitution meant among the founders, reflected in the two party battle between Hamilton's Federalists and the Democratic-Republican party of Jefferson and Monroe, scant years after the Constitutional Convention and the ratification of the COTUS?

Your go-to guy Hamilton came up with the federal government handling the states' debts, and a national (private) bank. Where are such powers for the federal government enumerated in the Constitution?

I would think you would find those actions abhorrent to the limited powers doctrine you espouse. Do you?

We don't get to take our Constitution only on our own terms. It has its own 230 year history, and if it doesn't mean what the SCOTUS says it does, our system is without an arbiter.

I can agree that the SCOTUS went too far in finding an 'emanation from a penumbra' a sufficient reason to extend the Griswald ruling on whether birth control could be legally forbidden in Massachusetts to married couples because of the influence of the Roman Catholic Church there, to a generalized privacy right (how we got Roe v. Wade's decision). Whether the ruling was right, and just this reasoning flawed, or the whole ruling flawed since the reasoning was wrong, is a question as well.

However, the answer for someone loyal to the Constitution and our system is to eventually correct that decision down the road with better jurists on the high court, not to disobey this ruling or advocate sedition in the meantime.

Or do you only support the rule of law when you like the laws?

LWW
08-04-2011, 03:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your go-to guy Hamilton came up with the federal government handling the states' debts</div></div>

And which moonbat leftist site spoon fed you this lie?

Here's ... and I know this pains you ... the truth on that matter.

The individual states, as well as the continental congress, had ran up what was then considerable European debt during the war of independence.

Hamilton's position in his historic “REPORT ON THE PUBLIC CREDIT” ... which I wish every member of congress was made to read ... advocated that this was all war debt piled up during the process of building a nation.

Since their was really nothing like a national government prior to the COTUS, his idea was take all of the war debt of the individual colonies and combine it with the war debt of the continental congress and have it be repaid with revenues from the new federal government.

He also advocated that western undeveloped lands be sold to retire the deby completely.

Your notion that Hamilton was in favor of the feds guaranteeing state debt accumulated during day to day operations after the passage of the COTUS is ridiculous and a myth aimed at deception ... either through intent to deceive or an unwillingness to question anything spoon fed to you by the party.

As Goebbels said, yes this is paraphrased ... since you are a typical leftist who demands that everyone operate at a higher standard than you are willing to, the most convincing lie is one that contains a single kernel of irrefutable truth.

This whopper is a classic example.

LWW
08-04-2011, 04:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and a national (private) bank. Where are such powers for the federal government enumerated in the Constitution?</div></div>

That was easy:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"To <span style='font-size: 11pt'>borrow money</span> on the credit of the United States;

To <span style='font-size: 11pt'>regulate Commerce</span> with foreign Nations, and <span style='font-size: 11pt'>among the several States</span>, and with the Indian Tribes ...

To coin Money, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>regulate the Value thereof</span>, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures ..."</span>

For this gross misinterpretation, spoon fed or malicious, to hold any water whatsoever ... one must assume that "THE FIRST BANK OF THE UNITED STATES" was something akin to the current "FEDERAL RESERVE BANK." It was not. Not even close.

Prior to the passage of the COTUS, there was an immense amount of different currencies in common use within the USA. These included dollars issued by the continental congress, English coins, Spanish coins, Portugese coins, currency issued by the individual states and even individual cities as well as scrip issued by major companies and even stores.

With such a spread of available currencies, speculators ran wild ... the rates of exchanges were incredibly volatile ... and commerce was extremely hindered when it was conducted at distances. The use of physical gold and silver was as uneasy a way to transact business then as now when large sums of money was needed due to it's physical size and weight.

The purpose of Hamilton's idea of a national bank was not to issue fiat currency as the Federal Reserve does today.

Hamilton's bank was the basis of modern US capitalism. It established monetary order and clarity. It set values for the various currencies and bought them up with dollars. Of the funds used to stabilize US currency, 80% was raised from private stock purchase, with 20% purchased by the US govt through debt to be repaid within 8 years. It acted as a depository for collected federal taxes. It was forbidden from the purchase of US govt bonds. It could not incur debt beyond the limits of beyond it's initial capitalization.

And, most importantly, it's charter was for a fixed period of 20 years ... during which time the new currency would be well established. Following those 20 years it was dissolved.

IOW ... it represented nothing remotely similar to what you are implying it did.